JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J.

CM-167-CWP-2026

1. This is an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of main writ petition (CWP-25035-2018), which was dismissed for non prosecution, vide order dated 10.12.2025.

2. For the reasons mentioned in application, the instant application is allowed; main writ petition is restored to its original number and status and same is taken on board today for hearing.

3. Application is disposed of accordingly.

CWP-25035-2018 (O/M)

1. Prayer in the instant civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 02.01.2013 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned District Collector, Sangrur (in short 'Collector'); order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (in short 'Divisional Commissioner') and order dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure P-6), passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab (in short 'Financial Commissioner').

2. Briefly, on demise of Shri Bhagat Singh, previous Lambardar of village Jhall, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, proceedings were initiated for filling up the aforesaid vacancy, wherein petitioner-Harvinder Singh (in short 'petitioner') and respondent No. 4-Jaswinder Singh (in short 'respondent No. 4') were also the candidates.

2.1 Naib Tehsildar, Amargarh; Tehsildar, Malerkotla as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla recommended the candidature of respondent No. 4 for appointment to the aforesaid vacancy and placed the matter before learned Collector.

2.2 It transpires that learned Collector, vide order dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure P-1), appointed petitioner as Lambardar only on the basis of his hereditary claim as his father was previous Lambardar of village Jhall.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved against learned Collector's order dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure P-1), respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before learned Divisional Commissioner, who vide order dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure P-2), allowed appeal of respondent No. 4 and remanded the matter to learned Collector for deciding the matter afresh after considering merits and demerits of both the candidates.

2.4 Upon remand, learned Collector, after considering the comparative merits of candidates, found respondent No. 4 as a suitable candidate and accordingly, appointed him as Lambardar of village Jhall, vide order dated 02.01.2013 (Annexure P-3).

2.5 Feeling aggrieved against learned Collector's order dated 02.01.2013 (Annexure P-3), petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Divisional Commissioner, which came to be dismissed, vide order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure P-4) .

2.6 Still aggrieved, petitioner preferred a revision petition (ROR-116-2015) before learned Financial Commissioner, which has also been dismissed, vide order dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure P-6).

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, petitioner has filed the instant civil writ petition before this Court for seeking relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that revenue authorities have erred in law and facts in passing the impugned orders as respondent No. 4 has been appointed only on the basis of recommendations made by lower revenue officers. It is submitted that petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No. 4 inasmuch as that he is son of deceased Lambardar and younger in age than respondent No. 4.

5. Heard.

6. Evidently, at the initial stage, petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by learned Collector, vide order dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure P-1) only on the basis of his hereditary claim; although same has been held to be ultra vires the Constitution by a Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1973 PLJ 676. However, on an appeal filed by respondent No. 4, learned Divisional Commissioner remanded the matter to learned Collector for deciding the matter afresh.

7. Upon remand, learned Collector found respondent No. 4 as more suitable candidate a