IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the appointment of a Lambardar must follow proper procedural guidelines, emphasizing the authority of the Collector in evaluating candidates.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh whereby respondent No.5 has been wrongly appointed as Lambardar of the village Surapur, Tehsil Nawashahar, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on account of death of Sewa Singh, earlier Lambardar of the village Surapur, Tehsil Nawashahar, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar on 07.05.2009, post of Lambardar fell vacant and thus, process for the appointment of new Lambardar was initiated. Proclamation was got done in the village for inviting applications from the interested candidates. In pursuance to the same, five applications were received. Character verifications of all the candidate were conducted. However, only Kulbir Singh, Parshotam Singh and Harmail Singh appeared alongwith their counsel before the Collector. On the comparison of inter-se merits of these candidates, their antecedents were found as under:-

3. Learned Collector on evaluation of the inter-se merits of all the candidates, finding Harmail Singh to be more meritorious candidate appointed him as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the same, Parshotam Singh (petitioner) and Kulbir Singh-respondent No.5, filed their independent appeals before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which were heard and decided together. Learned Divisional Commissioner on hearing both the sides, set aside the order passed by the Collector and appointed Parshotam Singh (petitioner) as Lambardar of the village vide a common order dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved by the same, Harmail Singh and respondent No.5-Kulbir Singh filed their independent appeal and revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner. The learned Financial Commissioner on hearing all the parties, disagreed with both the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner and dismissed the ROA-76-2013 filed by Harmial Singh and accepted the ROR-599-2013 filed by respondent No.5-Kulbir Singh and thus, appointed him a Lambardar of the village vide order dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure P-4). Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that on comparison of inter-se merits of all the candidates, the petitioner was the most meritorious candidate, who was illegally ignored by the learned Collector and thus, order passed by the Collector was rightly set aside by the Commissioner by appointing him as Lambardar of the village. He submits that the learned Financial Commissioner has, however, fallen in error in setting aside the same by appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village. He has submitted that the petitioner is matriculate and retired from Northern Railway with a clean record. Besides this, the petitioner owned 56 kanals of land in village Surapur as well as 9 kanal 2 marlas of land in adjoining village Pallian. He submits that in comparison to the same, respondent No.5 owned less land than the petitioner. He submits that respondent No.5 is the President of Mini Bus Transport Union, Nawanshahar and also the President of Multi Purpose Cooperative Agricultural Society, Surapur, thus, it is evident that he would not be available for discharging his duties as Lambardar in the village. He further submits that the learned JMIC, SBS Nagar vide order dated 09.11.2015 summoned respondent No.5 to face trial for the offence under Sections 499/500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, thus, it is evident that in the light of the parameters laid down in Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, the petitioner