Kiran Lata Vs. the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-i and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Service |
| Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Dec-05-2003 |
| Civil Writ Petition No. 17170 of 2002 |
| V.K. Bali and; Jasbir Singh, JJ. |
| (2004)136PLR890 |
| Kiran Lata |
| The Financial Commissioner, Appeals-i and ors. |
| Vijay Rana, Adv. |
| Nirmaljit Kaur, AAG for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and; G.S. Nagra, Adv. for Respondent No. 4 |
| Appeal dismissed |
- .....of village rajwal, tehsil mukerian, district hoshiarpur. the said order was set aside by commissioner, jalandhar division, jalandhar (respondent no. 2 herein) whose order has been set aside by the financial commissioner, appeals-i, punjab, chandigarh (respondent no. 1 herein) restoring the order of the district collector. it is the order dated 11.4.2002 (annexure p6) of the financial commissioner which is under challenge in this petition.2. it is well settled that choice of collector in the matter of appointment of lambardar needs no interference unless the said choice is perverse. such is not the position in the case in hand and, therefore, the commissioner only by discussing the respective merits of the candidates could not disturb the choice of collector in appointing the petitioner. that apart, it is significant to note that when the petitioner was the lone candidate for the post of lambardar, even then she was not found suitable for being appointed as such as is clear from order, annexure p3.nor merit. dismissed.sd/-jasbir singh, j.
V.K. Bali, J.
1. Vide order dated 18.9.2000, the District Collector, Hoshiarpur (respondent No. 3 herein) appointed Sudhama Ram son of Lahori Ram (respondent No. 4 herein) as Lambardar of Village Rajwal, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. The said order was set aside by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2 herein) whose order has been set aside by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1 herein) restoring the order of the District Collector. It is the order dated 11.4.2002 (Annexure P6) of the Financial Commissioner which is under challenge in this petition.
2. It is well settled that choice of Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar needs no interference unless the said choice is perverse. Such is not the position in the case in hand and, therefore, the Commissioner only by discussing the respective merits of the candidates could not disturb the choice of Collector in appointing the petitioner. That apart, it is significant to note that when the petitioner was the lone candidate for the post of Lambardar, even then she was not found suitable for being appointed as such as is clear from order, Annexure P3.
Nor merit. Dismissed.
Sd/-
Jasbir Singh, J.