Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1026 (PNJ)

Rajbir v. State of Haryana

2013-08-12

G.S.Sandhawalia, Jasbir Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- CM Nos.3598-3599 of 2013 These applications are filed for condonation of 41 days delay in re-filing and 48 days delay in filing the appeal. The applications are accompanied by affidavits. In view of reasons mentioned therein, the same are allowed and delay in re-filing and filing stands condoned. LPA No.1410 of 2013 (O&M) 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against an order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the learned Single Bench dismissing CWP No.19631 of 2011. Main order was passed in CWP No.10700 of 2011, filed by Subash Chand, respondent No.4. 2. In this appeal, dispute pertains to appointment of a Lambardar in village Garhi Patti Hodal, district Palwal. On accrual of post, applications were invited. After reports made by the field revenue staff, appellant, Subhash Chand, Smt.Shashi and Smt.Geeta (respondent No.3) emerged as the contesting candidates. The Collector, after considering comparative qualifications of the applicants, vide order dated 18.1.2010, appointed respondent No.3 as a Lambardar. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “After hearing the arguments and seeing the record carefully, I reached on the conclusion that in this case of lambardari 14 applications have been submitted and out of them 10 candidates have withdrawn their applications. Now four candidates Subhash Chand, Geeta Singh, Shashi and Rajbir were left in the fight. Out of them the allegations against candidate Rajbir is that, he has encroached the panchayat land. For that litigation is going on. As such like father-in-law of candidate Shashi also encroached seven marlas land of panchayat. So, both candidates are not entitled to be appointed as Lambardar. Candidate Subhash Chand motivated only three family planning cases while candidate Geeta Singh motivated six family planning cases. Candidate Geeta Singh have four acres land and her father-in-law has 18 acres land. While candidate Subhash has 3 acres land. Gram Panchayat also passed a resolution for appointing Geeta Singh as lambardar. While no such resolution has been passed in favour of candidate Subhash Chand. On the basis these facts SDO(Civil) Hodal recommended the name of Geeta Singh. I agree with his recommendation and candidate Geeta Singh is appointed as Lambardar of village Garhi Patti Hodal.” 3. It was noted that respondent No.3, a lady, is a better candidate. She had motivated more family planning cases, owns land and also she is wife of serving army personnel. I agree with his recommendation and candidate Geeta Singh is appointed as Lambardar of village Garhi Patti Hodal.” 3. It was noted that respondent No.3, a lady, is a better candidate. She had motivated more family planning cases, owns land and also she is wife of serving army personnel. The Commissioner, in appeal, upset that order and remitted the matter for fresh decision on merits to the Collector vide order dated 14.9.2010. Respondent No.3 went in appeal, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner. It was again reiterated that she is the best candidate in comparison to the other candidates. Appellant came to this Court by filing CWP No.19631 of 2011. Subhash Chand, another candidate, also filed CWP No.10700 of 2011. Both writ petitions were dismissed vide order dated 22.2.2013. The learned Single Judge has considered all the arguments raised before him by the appellant’s counsel. Relevant portion of the order of the Single Bench reads thus:- “The order dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector, Palwal, has been found to be based on correct appreciation of facts. He has assigned cogent reasons, while appointing respondent no.2 as Lambardar. She was found having clear edge over other contesting candidates. Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, while passing his order dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) proceeded on an erroneous approach, while upsetting the order of the District Collector. However, the order passed by the Commissioner was rightly set aside by the Financial Commissioner, while passing the impugned order. The relevant part of the order dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Financial Commissioner, reads as under :- “Further, from the perusal of the file it is clear that revenue estate of Kachhi Khera is be chirag and only the persons resident of Garhi Patti Hodal owns land in that revenue estate and candidate Smt. Geeta Singh fulfills the provision of Rule 15 (b) regarding owning of land in the estate. So no adverse inference can be drawn against any of the candidates regarding this issue. All the candidates are having almost equal qualification. Regarding age and other merits candidate Smt.Geeta Singh has better merit than the other candidate being army officer’s wife and due to promotion of 12 family planning cases. Regarding fourth issue, the choice of the Collector can be interfered only when there is some patent error or illegality in the order passed by him. Regarding age and other merits candidate Smt.Geeta Singh has better merit than the other candidate being army officer’s wife and due to promotion of 12 family planning cases. Regarding fourth issue, the choice of the Collector can be interfered only when there is some patent error or illegality in the order passed by him. In this case, there appears no infirmity and perversity in the order passed by the Collector, Palwal. Hence, the order dated 14.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon is not based on cogent reasons and the same is set aside. Accordingly, revision petition is accepted and the order dated 18.1.2010 passed by the District Collector, Palwal is restored.” In view of the reasons assigned by the Financial Commissioner in the above said impugned order, the same deserves to be upheld. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioners. Further, no jurisdictional error or patent illegality or perversity could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is sine-qua non for interference by this court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction. In the writ petition filed by Rajbir, all the three respondent revenue authorities have recorded their concurrent findings against him. Nothing substantial has been pointed out on his behalf for upsetting the concurrent findings. Thus, it is unhesitatingly held that the District Collector, as well as the Financial Commissioner have not committed any error of law, while passing their respective impugned orders. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered view that both the writ petitions are bereft of any merit and without any substance, thus, must fail. No case for interference has been made out.” 4. It was noted that respondent No.3 is the best candidate amongst all the applicants. 5. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the orders passed by the Courts below. Respondent No.3 is a lady. By appointing her as Lambardar, a step has been taken towards woman empowerment. She is wife of a serving army personnel. By appointing her against the post, recognition has been given to the service of her husband, who is defending the country. Her father-in-law owns more than 18 acres of land. She is doing social service and is herself owner of 4 acre of land. 6. She is wife of a serving army personnel. By appointing her against the post, recognition has been given to the service of her husband, who is defending the country. Her father-in-law owns more than 18 acres of land. She is doing social service and is herself owner of 4 acre of land. 6. No case is made out for interference. 7. The appeal stands dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------