Sukhvir Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH LPA-2849-2024 (O&M) Decided on : 11.09.2025 SUKHVIR SINGH . .Appellant

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. R. S. Randhawa, Advocate for the respondent No. 5/ Caveator.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-24644-2024, by which, the order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2- Financial Commissioner, Punjab, remanding the case back to the District Collector, Ludhiana (respondent No. 3) for re-evaluating the merit of the appellant as well as the respondent No.5 -Gurpreet Singh for the post of Lambardar (General Category) of Village Saharan Majra, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana, has been set-aside and the order dated 03.07.2018

-2- (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Collector, Ludhiana appointing the respondent No. 5 as a Lambardar of the village concerned, has been upheld. 2.

Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2024 did not appreciate the fact that the Financial Commissioner, Punjab vide order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) has only remanded the case back to District Collector, Ludhiana, because the evaluation of the merit of the two candidates for the post of Lambardar of the village concerned was not done properly and the said evaluation was cryptic and respondent No. 5 was appointed as a Lambardar over the appellant without giving any valid reason. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submit that while passing the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2024, the reasons given by the learned Single Judge that the order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, are incorrect and the same are perverse to the facts and evidence which were brought on record, hence, the same is liable to be set-aside.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that the appellant is younger in age than the respondent No. 5, hence, keeping in view the fact that the earlier Lambardar of the village concerned was the cousin of the appellant, hence, the appellant was entitled to be given preference, which fact has rightly been evaluated by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab while passing the order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-5), which order has wrongly been set-aside by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 01.10.2024.

5.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5

-3who is also the caveator, submits that due reasons were given by the District Collector, Ludhiana, while appointing the respondents as a lambardar of the village concerned which fact has been ignored by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab while remanding the case back to District Collector, Ludhiana and learned Single Judge, by giving the due reasons as to why, the order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab is unsustainable, the same has been set-aside and the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.10.2024 may kindly be upheld.

6.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 7.

It may be noticed that the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) by which, the case was remanded back to the District Collector Ludhiana to re-evaluate the merit between the appellant and the respondent No. 5 for the post of Lambardar for the village concerned was valid and the same should not have been interferred by the learned Single Judge. It may be noticed that the reasons given by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab while remanding the case back to the District Collector, Ludhiana are that the merit of two candidates has not been evaluated and the said order of District Collector, Ludhiana appointing the respondent No. 5 is cryptic in nature. 8.

Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2024, has also reproduced the order dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Collector, Ludhiana in paragraph No.

-48 of the said order. A bare perusal of the same would show that all the merits and demerits of both the candidates (i.e. appellant and respondent No.5) were considered for the post of Lambardar of the village concerned and then the said order dated 03.07.2018 (Anneuxre P-2) was passed by the District Collector, Ludhiana, appointing the respondent no. 5 as a lambardar of the Village concerned.

9.

Once, the District Collector, Ludhiana, while appointing the respondent No. 5 as a Lambardar of the village concerned vide order dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure P-2), has also mentioned that the appellant has failed to answer the questions relating to the revenue which was asked from him, the said reason can be a sole good ground to oust the appellant from the zone of selection and to appoint respondent No. 5 as a Lambardar of the village concerned.

10.

It may be noticed that once, a person does not have the knowledge of revenue proceedings and the other person has a good knowledge of revenue proceedings which is very essential to perform the duty on the post of Lambardar and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab has ignored the said fact while remanding the case back to the District Collector, Ludhiana, the learned Single Judge, has rightly set-aside the order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab so as to uphold the appointment of respondent No. 5 as a lambardar. 11.

Further, e


 

             


          


    

!

-5-



  that the same is contrary to the facts or evidence available on record or the settled principle of law " #

     

!    

 

      14.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

15.

Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 11.09.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No