Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1118 (PNJ)

Baljit Singh v. State of Haryana

2012-08-30

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Financial Commissioner upsetting the order of his appointment to the post of Lambardar of village Kirmach, Tehsil Thansher, District Kurukshetra made by the Commissioner. The petitioner claims that his brother was Lambardar of the village and on his death, post of Lambardar fell vacant. The applications were invited for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The Collector, after considering the relative merits, appointed respondent No. 4. The claim of the petitioner was declined primarily on the ground that he did not belong to Patti of the deceased. Otherwise, the petitioner states that he is more suitable for the appointment to the post of Lambardar and had been helping his grand father and brother in the duties of Lambardar. The petitioner, accordingly, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who set aside the order passed by the District Collector and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. The ground of attack to the appointment of respondent No. 4 was that he belongs to Bahu Patti whereas he is resident of Kalu Patti. It is also stated that respondent No. 4 has disclosed his age to be 50 years whereas he was 65 years and was getting old age pension. It is alleged that FIR No. 32 dated 26.02.2008 under Sections 420, 467 and 468 etc. was been lodged against son of respondent No. 4, which was also brought to the notice of the Collector. The petitioner otherwise was found to be 36 years old and middle pass. Respondent No. 4 did not produce any record to show his educational qualification, whereas he claimed himself to be middle pass. As per the counsel for the petitioner, documents have now been placed on record to show that respondent No. 4 is 7th class pass. Respondent No. 4 is much older in age. The disqualification, which the petitioner carries, appears that he is not owning any land. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record some documents to show that he now owns land. Counsel for the respondent would dispute this fact by referring to judgment passed by this court in the case of Mohender Singh Vs. The disqualification, which the petitioner carries, appears that he is not owning any land. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record some documents to show that he now owns land. Counsel for the respondent would dispute this fact by referring to judgment passed by this court in the case of Mohender Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner Haryana and others 2007 (1) LAR 542, where this Court has observed that the petitioner who was not having any land in his name when the process for appointment of Lambardar was commenced and who got land transferred subsequently, cannot claim to be holding the land as qualifications are required to be taken note of at the time when the vacancy is notified and not thereafter. The Court has also observed that holding of land is essential consideration for becoming Lambardar. Respondent no. 4, on the other hand, has not disputed that he is in receipt of old age pension. It can, thus, be noticed that said respondent has made an attempt to mislead the authorities by showing his age to be 50 years. As per respondent No.4, FIR alleged to have been registered against son of the petitioner does not contain name of son of the petitioner. It appears that both the parties have resorted to exaggerations and has not been truthful in making allegations etc. The Commissioner has interfered with the choice exercised by the Collector. Apparently, the valid consideration for appointment of Lambardar has been ignored by the Collector as well as by the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner also has gone by the view expressed by the Collector. Once there are so many infirmities pointed out and raised by the candidates contesting for the post, which are not properly considered, it would be appropriate to direct the Collector to initiate the process afresh and appoint some suitable person. Appointment either of the petitioner or of respondent No. 4 cannot be upheld for want of proper consideration. It will be in the fitness of things, if the case is remitted back to the Collector for reconsideration after inviting fresh applications so that fully qualified person is appointed as Lambardar. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 would be at liberty to submit fresh application in response to advertisement and their earlier conduct in these proceedings cannot be altogether ignored and be kept in view. The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 would be at liberty to submit fresh application in response to advertisement and their earlier conduct in these proceedings cannot be altogether ignored and be kept in view. The writ petition is disposed of. The order passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are set aside. The Collector would now initiate fresh process for appointment of Lamdbardar.