Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 5 (PNJ)

Sada Ram v. Shashi Pal

2005-01-03

MUKUL JOSHI

body2005
ORDER Mukul Joshi, F.C. - This is a revision petition filed against the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 25.9.2002 in the matter of Lambardari of village Bhatoli, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. Vide this order the Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order of the District Collector, Hoshiarpur dated 4.7.2001 vide which the Collector had appointed the present respondent as Lambardar of the village against the vacancy arising from the death of Shri Bhagwan Dass, Lambardar. 2. The details of the case are narrated in the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner and need not be gone into again. The case was heard and was fixed for arguments on 26.10.2004. On this date both the counsels appeared before me and stated that the case can be heard without summoning the record of the lower courts, and written arguments shall be submitted within 10 days. Accordingly orders were reserved. Written arguments have now been submitted. 3. On behalf of the petitioner the main argument placed before me is that the respondent is a licensed Government Contractor and on that account he is not available for serving the residents of the village. It has been urged that this is a serious disqualification and this fact has been ignored by both the Collector and the Commissioner. It was further urged that it is well settled principle in Lambardari cases that if there is a suitable candidate who resides in the village he should be given preference in the appointment over a person who is not a resident of the village. As regard the merits of the candidates the petitioner is Matriculate, Ex-serviceman who had fought three wars of 1962, 1965 and 1971, and had been awarded seven Medals and certificate for meritorious service. He is a pensioner and is in good health and of clean character. On the other hand the respondent is 6th pass and does not have the qualifications and achievements of the petitioner. On the above account it was argued that the petitioner is a far better candidate for the post of Lambardar and should be so appointed. The orders of the Collector require to be set aside and the petitioner should be appointed as Lambardar. 4. On the above account it was argued that the petitioner is a far better candidate for the post of Lambardar and should be so appointed. The orders of the Collector require to be set aside and the petitioner should be appointed as Lambardar. 4. On behalf of the respondent it was urged that the respondent is not only fully qualified for being appointed Lambardar, he is also son of deceased Lambardar and has suffifient experience of the duties of Lambardar, which he has been performing properly since his appointment on 12.9.2001. It was urged that he is the owner of more land, he is much younger in age, being only 43 years against 73 years of the petitioner, and also has knowledge of Hindi, Punjabi and English. It was further urged that the respondent has not taken up any contract work in the last year. It was further urged that it is a well settled principle in Lambardari matters that the order of the Collector can be interfered with only if it contained some perversity, irregularity. In the present case the appointment of the Lambardar has been made after due enquiry and the respondent is an eligible and suitable candidate for Lambardar. There is no illegality or patent error in the order of the Collector such as would warrant interference in it. It was urged that the revision petition require to be dismissed and the orders of the Commissioner and the Collector upheld. 5. I have heard the arguments of the counsels and I am fully in agreement with the counsel for the respondent that the Collector had made his selection after due enquiry and duly weighing the merits of the two candidate. It is a well settled principle in the matters of Lambardari that the orders of the Collector should not be interfered with unless they contain some irregularity, perversity or patent error, and this is not a case that calls for any interference by higher Revenue authorities. The Collector has made the selection after giving due opportunity to both the candidates to present their case and after evaluating their relative merits. His order in no way suffers from any irregularity, perversity or patent error, and therefore does not warrant any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.