Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Once the Financial Commissioner opined that the Commissioner interfered in the order passed by the Collector recognizing hereditary claim... there was no reason for the Financial Commissioner to interfere in the order passed by the Collector in the absence of there being any perversity." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a ruling, held that a revisional authority cannot set aside an appointment order passed by a District Collector for the post of Lambardar without first establishing an element of perversity in the selection process.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Jain observed that once the appellate authority’s basis for interference—such as a hereditary claim—is found to be legally untenable, the Financial Commissioner is not justified in remanding the matter if the Collector’s initial assessment of comparative merit remains sound.

The dispute arose over the appointment of a Village Headman (Lambardar) in Village Dhunike, District Bathinda. The District Collector had originally appointed the petitioner, an MBA graduate, over the respondent, a 12th-pass candidate, citing superior comparative merits. This order was subsequently set aside by the Divisional Commissioner, who granted the position to the respondent based on a hereditary claim.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether the Financial Commissioner erred in law by remanding the appointment process back to the Collector after correctly identifying that the Commissioner had improperly relied on a hereditary claim. The core issue was whether the revisional authority possesses the power to reopen an appointment process in the absence of demonstrated perversity or illegality in the Collector's primary order.

Collector’s Role In Assessing Merit

The court underscored that the appointment of a Lambardar is a function performed by the District Collector, who acts as the head of the revenue district. The Collector is mandated to conduct a meticulous evaluation of the comparative merits and demerits of all candidates. When the Collector performs this duty appropriately, their decision is accorded significant weight.

Revisional Authority Limits

The High Court observed that the Financial Commissioner had correctly noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had exceeded its jurisdiction by relying on hereditary claims, a practice previously struck down by a Division Bench of the High Court. However, the court found the subsequent order of remand to be legally flawed.

No Justification For Remand

The bench held that simply expressing dissatisfaction with the Collector's reasoning does not grant the revisional authority a blank cheque to set aside the appointment. Without a specific finding of perversity, illegality, or a manifest error in the Collector's assessment of inter-se merits, the order of appointment must be sustained.

"The Financial Commissioner ought to have maintained the order passed by the Collector while reversing order passed by the Commissioner."

The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the Financial Commissioner’s decision to remand the case was unwarranted. Consequently, the court set aside the orders passed by both the Financial Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner, restoring the original appointment of the petitioner as the Lambardar of Village Dhunike.

Date of Decision: 31 August 2026