CWP-1554-2019 (O&M) [230] Parshotam Singh State of Punjab and Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] 16.07.2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby the revision petition authorities below, appointing the private respondent Village Wahid, [2] No.4-Mohan Singh to be more suitable compared to the present petitioner. It is not disputed that respondent more educated as compared to the petitioner and has also served as the Sarpanch of the Village. [3] below have erred in ignoring the fact that the appo respondent No.4 is not a resident of the village and thus his appointment (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1554 Date of Decision : Parshotam Singh versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition is directed against Order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner, impugning orders passed by the authorities below, appointing the private respondent Village Wahid, stands dismissed. All the authorities below have concurrently found respondent Mohan Singh to be more suitable compared to the present petitioner. It is not disputed that respondent more educated as compared to the petitioner and has also served as the Sarpanch of the Village. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the authorities below have erred in ignoring the fact that the appo respondent No.4 is not a resident of the village and thus his appointment IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1554-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.07.2026 …Petitioner ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab The present writ petition is directed against Order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby the , impugning orders passed by the authorities below, appointing the private respondent as Lambardar All the authorities below have concurrently found respondent Mohan Singh to be more suitable for the post of Lambardar compared to the present petitioner. It is not disputed that respondent No.4 is more educated as compared to the petitioner. He has bigger land holdings and has also served as the Sarpanch of the Village. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the authorities below have erred in ignoring the fact that the appointed candidate i.e. private respondent No.4 is not a resident of the village and thus his appointment 1 The present writ petition is directed against Order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby the , impugning orders passed by the of All the authorities below have concurrently found respondent Lambardar as No.4 is holdings Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the authorities inted candidate i.e. private respondent No.4 is not a resident of the village and thus his appointment RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.06 18:13 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-1554-2019 (O&M) shall cause with respect to the private respondent not being the resident of the villag has been considered and found to be incorrect by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 23.08 [4] conclusion recorded by the authorities below finding respondent No.4 to be more suitable for the post of Village Finding no merit in the present writ petition, t dismissed [5] disposed off 01.07.2026 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) shall cause grave inconvenience to the residents of the village. The issue with respect to the private respondent not being the resident of the villag has been considered and found to be incorrect by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 23.08.2016. In view of the above, this Court finds that the concurrent conclusion recorded by the authorities below finding respondent No.4 to be more suitable for the post of Village Lambardar Finding no merit in the present writ petition, t dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. 01.07.2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable inconvenience to the residents of the village. The issue with respect to the private respondent not being the resident of the villag has been considered and found to be incorrect by the Commissioner In view of the above, this Court finds that the concurrent conclusion recorded by the authorities below finding respondent No.4 to be Lambardar needs no interference. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is ordered to be All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 2 inconvenience to the residents of the village. The issue with respect to the private respondent not being the resident of the village has been considered and found to be incorrect by the Commissioner In view of the above, this Court finds that the concurrent conclusion recorded by the authorities below finding respondent No.4 to be no interference. he same is ordered to be All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.07.06 18:13 I agree to specified portions of this document