IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.02.2026 Rajwinder Singh ....Petitioner Vs.

Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. G.S Nagra, Advocate with Mr. B.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. K.S. Bal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

*****

HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)

1 Petition herein is, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-14) passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab.

2. Briefly, upon demise of Sh. Gurmej Singh, previous Lambardar of Village Talwandi Nahar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, proceedings were initiated for filing up the said vacancy, wherein petitioner (Rajwinder Singh) and respondent No.4 (Sukhwinder Singh) were also the candidates.

2.1. The learned Tehsildar, Ajnala as well as the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala, recommended the candidature of present petitioner for appointment to the aforesaid vacancy and placed the matter before the learned District Collector, Amritsar.

2.2. It appears that learned Collector, Amritsar, after considering the relative merits and demerits of the candidates found petitioner (Rajwinder I attest to the accuracy andSingh) as the more suitable candidate; accordingly, appointed him as the Lambardar of Village Talwandi Nahar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, vide order dated 16.09.2014 (Annexure P-2).

2.3. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 16.09.2014 (Annexure P-2), respondent No.4 (Sukhwinder Singh) preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Divison, Jalandhar. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Commissioner, Jalandhar.

2.4. Still aggrieved, the respondent No.4 (Sukhwinder Singh) preferred a revision petition (ROR No.550 of 2016) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, whereby, the learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab without setting aside the orders passed by the learned District Collector as well as the learned Commissioner, remanded back the matter to learned District Collector to revisit the matter, primarily considering the plea of respondent No.4 (Sukhwinder Singh) that the allegation levelled against him regarding non-deposit of chowkidara was not correct.

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

4. Heard.

5. Here, it would be apposite to refer to the relative merits of the petitioner and respondent No.4 (as noticed by the Learned Collector), which is as under:-\

5.1. A perusal of the above-extracted comparison would clearly show that the petitioner has an edge over respondent No.4 inasmuch as, the petitioner is younger in age and more educated than the respondent No.4 and even his name was recommended by both the lower Revenue Officers i.e. learned Tehsildar Ajanala as well learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala. Furthermore, learned Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar upon considering the better merits of the petitioner, appointed him as Lambardar of village Talwandi Nahar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar which has been further affirmed by the learned Commissioner; however, the learned Financial Commissioner has merely remanded back the matter to the learned Collector to revisit the issue without setting aside the order passed by learned Collector as well as learned Commissioner, appointing the petitioner as the Lambardar of village Talwandi Nahar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar.

6. In my considered view, the approach of the learned Financial Commissioner in re