Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1487 (PNJ)

Kuldip Singh v. State Of Punjab

2008-08-29

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2008
Judgment J.S.Khehar, J. 1. Gurdial Singh the previous Lambardar, was dismissed by the District Collector Fatehgarh Sahib, by an order dated 13.12.1999. Accordingly, the process of appointment of a new Lambardar was set into motion by a proclamation in village Jai Singh Wala, Tehsil Bassi Pathana District Fatehgarh Sahib. Although, a number of applications were received, yet all the contestants other than Kuldip Singh (the petitioner herein) and Rakha Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) withdrew from the contest. The name of Kuldip Singh was recommended by the District Collector, Bassi Pathana, for appointment as Lambardar on 31.10.2000. 2. Dissatisfied with the recommendation made in favour of Kuldip Singh, as has been stated in the foregoing paragraph, Rakha Singh filed an appeal, before the District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib. Having considered the relative merits of the rival candidates, the aforesaid appeal came to be dismissed on 12.2.2001. 3. Still aggrieved by the action of the authorities in appointing Kuldip Singh as Lambardar, Rakha Singh preferred a further appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Circle. The Divisional Commissioner, Patiala (Circle, arrived at the conclusion that Rakha Singh was more meritorious than Kuldip Singh. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted. The appointment of Kuldip Singh as Lambardar was set aside and in his place Rakha Singh was appointed as Lambardar. 4. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Circle, Kuldip Singh preferred a revision petition challenging the order dated 18.6.2001 vide which the appeal preferred by Rakha Singh had been accepted. The Financial Commissioner appeals-II by an order dated 23.10.2003, dismissed the revision petition preferred by Kuldip Singh. It is, therefore, that Kuldip Singh has preferred the instant writ petition, so as to challenge the action of the respondents in choosing Rakha Singh over him for appointment as Lambardar. 5. The pleadings in the instant writ petition, as well as the documents appended thereto, reveal the merits of the petitioner. The merits of the petitioner have also been highlighted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It has been emphatically pointed out that the petitioner Kuldip Singh had assisted the previous Lambardar Gurdial Singh and accordingly was having adequate experience for discharging the duties of a Lambardar. It was also pointed out that the statement of 58 persons belonging to village Jai Singh Wala, were recorded in favour of the petitioner, whereas, only 51 persons had deposed in favour of Rakha Singh. It was also pointed out that the statement of 58 persons belonging to village Jai Singh Wala, were recorded in favour of the petitioner, whereas, only 51 persons had deposed in favour of Rakha Singh. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was the President of a Cooperative Society of eight villages. In this behalf, it was pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner as President was unanimous. Additionally, it was pointed out that the petitioner owns 52 bighas 5 biswas land in the village. He was also younger to Rakha Singh, and had received education upto 5th class and as such ought to have been chosen as the most meritorious and suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar. 6. As against me submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has highlighted achievements of Rakha Singh which are being summarized hereunder: a) Respondent is permanent resident of village Jai Singh Wala Tehsil Bassi Pathana. b) The holding of the respondent falls in Sidhu Patti to which the Lambardari in question belongs, is 72 Bighas 7 Biswas. c) Educational qualifications: Higher Secondary passed from GTB Khalsa Higher Secondary School Khand Manpur (Ambala) on 3.6.1964. Certificate issued by the Punjab University already on of the authorities below. d) Respondent also passed Diploma in Rural Services Examination which was held in 1969, conducted by the National council for Higher Secondary education, Government of India. Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, New Delhi and which is equivalent to First Degree of any Indian Recognised University. The same is also placed on record of the authorities below. e) The respondent participated in Punjabi Poetic Recitation contest which was held under the auspices of Students Central Association of Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib and the merit certificate was issued by Principal of college in favour of the respondent. f) Certificate issued by the President Ambala District High and Higher Secondary School, Tournament Committee as the respondent participated in Basket Ball Tournment held at Ambala. g) Certificate of B issued by Director General, National Cadet Corps. Senior Division, Army Wing (Infantry) as the respondent participated in the said Cadet Corps held in February, 1967 under the authority of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, the certificate is also available on record of the authorities below. g) Certificate of B issued by Director General, National Cadet Corps. Senior Division, Army Wing (Infantry) as the respondent participated in the said Cadet Corps held in February, 1967 under the authority of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, the certificate is also available on record of the authorities below. h) Campers Certificate issued by Director Training BSS Punjab, Chandigarh, i) Respondent is a Director Jai Singh Wala Agricultural Society, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib having deposit of Rs. 37,440/- and Kisan Vikas Patrika Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- each. j) Uncle of the respondent namely Rakha Singh remained Sarpanch for 14 years and also remained in the Military service for 12 years and rendered the service to the State and National. k) Wife of the respondent is also Member of Panchayat of Village Jai Singh Wala. l) That the entire family of respondent served the village State and Nation. m) The Gram Panchayat of village Jai Singh Wala passed a resolution on 3.8.2000 and recommended the name of the respondent for the appointment by the BDPO, Bassi Pathana. n) Name of the respondent was recommended by the SDM, Bassi Pathana. o) Certificate issued by Major commanding Officer, Lok Sahayak Sena Training Team as the respondent was enrolled on 15.1.1962 for undergoing basic and elementary civics training in the L.S.S. Camp held at Ropar. 7. Before examine the comparative merits of the rival candidates, it would be necessary to take into consideration certain judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the first instance, invited the Courts attention to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhey Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, wherein it was held that the discretion to select a Lambardar, under the statutory rules, was vested with the Collector and that the aforesaid discretion having been vested with the Collector, the choice of the Collector has to be respected and cannot be lightly interfered with either by the appellate authority or by the revisional authority. The Division Bench also arrived at the conclusion that even if a candidate was illiterate he could be chosen as a Lambardar in a given set of circumstances. The Division Bench also arrived at the conclusion that even if a candidate was illiterate he could be chosen as a Lambardar in a given set of circumstances. Reliance was also placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Sarwan Kumar v. The Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab (2002-2) 131 P.L.R. 448, wherein a similar conclusion was drawn as a Nirbhey Singhs case (supra) by holding that the appointment of Lambardar at the hands of a Collector on the basis of the recommendation made by the Assistant Collector, Grade-II and the Divisional Magistrate after considering the rival merits of the candidates cannot be substituted merely by observing that the other candidate was a better candidate. It was also concluded that judicial review of the determination rendered by the revenue authorities would be permissible only in circumstances where the order of the competent authority suffers from jurisdictional infirmity or patent legal error warranting substitution of the determination rendered by the revenue authorities. Last at all, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench decision rendered by this Court in Gurbachan Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) Punjab (2001-2) 128 P.L.R. 503, wherein it had been concluded that merely on account of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against one of the candidates could not be a valid justification for an adverse inference against the said candidate as registration of criminal proceedings cannot be equated to a finding of guilt against the said candidate. Likewise in Sardool Singh v. The Financial Commissioner. Appeal-I Punjab and Ors. 2000 (2) P.L.J. 469, which was also relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it was concluded that where the order passed by the Collector is just and reasonable the same could not be interfered with. It is in the background of the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that it is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner, that it would be improper for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Collector appointing the petitioner Kuldip Singh as Lambardar, consequent upon favourable recommendations at the hands of the revenue authorities. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the rival parties. The only question that confronts is whether it would be proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Collector on the basis of the recommendations made by subordinate revenue authorities in appointing Kuldip Singh as Lambardar. In our considered view, in case of relatively equal merits of the rival candidates the subjective satisfaction of the Collector should not be interfered with despite the fact that the adjudicating authority arrives at the conclusion that a candidate other than the candidate chosen by the Collector is more meritorious. But in a case where on a comparative merit of the rival candidates one of the candidates is found to be far more meritorious than the one chosen by the Collector interference at the hands of the appellate/revisional authority, as also during the course of judicial review, is eminent, failing which a discretion arbitrarily exercised would defeat the cause of justice. 9. Having considered the rival merits of the candidates, as have been delineated in the foregoing paragraphs, we are satisfied that Rakha Singh was far more meritorious than Kuldip Singh. As such, the determination rendered by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Circle, vide his order dated 18.6.2001, as also by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in the revisional order dated 23.10.2003, are not only appropriate but are wholly justified. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly dismissed.