Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1591 (PNJ)

Mahender Singh v. State of Haryana

2013-12-02

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2013
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 30.8.2011 passed by respondent No. 1 by which order of the Collector dated 20.5.2011 appointing him as Lambardar and order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 28.12.2010 upholding the order of the Collector has been illegally set aside. In brief, the post of Lambardar of General Category of village Rudrol, Tehsil Dadri, District Bhiwani, fell vacant after the death of Kuldeep Singh. After the proclamation to fill up the vacant post, three applications were received. Tehsildar Dadri as well as S.D.O. (Civil) recommended the name of respondent No. 4 to the Collector, who vide his order dated 28.12.2010 appointed the petitioner as Lambardar after considering inter se merits of the candidates. His order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by way of appeal which was dismissed by Divisional Commissioner vide his order dated 20.5.2011. Respondent No. 4 preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which has been allowed vide the impugned order dated 30.8.2011. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Collector is the appointing authority, who had considered respective merits of the parties and finding the petitioner to be more suitable for the post of Lambardar, appointed him in place of respondent No. 4. In this regard, the comparative table prepared in the Naksha Lambardari is reproduced as under:-- 3. It is further submitted that while dismissing the appeal filed by respondent No. 4, the Divisional Commissioner passed the following order:-- After hearing the parties and perusal of the record, I came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 is M.A. pass and owns land of 27 acres. It is clear that respondent No. 1 is highly qualified than the appellant and respondent No. 2 and he is having more land than them. As far as the experience of Sarbrah Lambardar is concerned, the instructions of the government regarding this matter is clear that the hereditary claim is only to be considered when the merits of all the applicants are the same. In the instant case, the qualification of respondent No. 1 is higher than both other candidates. The question raised by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 1 is not the permanent resident of the village, is not having any force as the respondent No. 1 has produced documents and his statement shows that he is the permanent resident of the village. The question raised by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 1 is not the permanent resident of the village, is not having any force as the respondent No. 1 has produced documents and his statement shows that he is the permanent resident of the village. The respondent No. 2 has not filed any appeal. This is a settled law that in the case of appointment of Lambardar, the orders of the Collector is only interfered where it is perverse, illegal and carrying high irregularities. There is no such kind of illegality in this order. The order of the Collector, Bhiwani clearly seems to be legal and valid. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed being without any merit. 4. However, the Financial Commissioner set aside both the orders with the following observations:-- I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Collector, Bhiwani has appointed respondent Mohinder Singh Lambardar in the village as he had higher education and more land and he was also an income tax payee. This has been controverted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner who has pleaded that both the candidates are Graduate and there is no significance of MA first year. The land shown in respondent's name actually is in the name of his father. He only owns 5 acres land and not 27 acres, as wrongly stated. In contrast, petitioner owns 12 acres land in his own name. It has also been submitted that both the field Revenue Officers, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade and Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, have found petitioner more meritorious and has recommended his name for the appointment. Petitioner has also knowledge of the work of Lambardari as his father and grand father has remained Lambardar in the village. He permanently lives in the village, whereas, respondent, who is engaged in business of shares, does not remain in the village most of the time. It has also been mentioned that respondent takes active part in politics and is not eligible for appointment as Lambardar. This fact, though, has not been fully substantiated. Even if this issue is ignored, a comparison of the qualifications possessed by the petitioner and respondent shows that petitioner Jagwant has overwhelming merits in comparison to respondent Mohinder. Collector has committed grave error in law in ignoring his merits and not appointing him Lambardar. This fact, though, has not been fully substantiated. Even if this issue is ignored, a comparison of the qualifications possessed by the petitioner and respondent shows that petitioner Jagwant has overwhelming merits in comparison to respondent Mohinder. Collector has committed grave error in law in ignoring his merits and not appointing him Lambardar. Order dated 28.12.2010 passed by Collector Bhiwani suffers from perversity, and the same is set aside. Keeping in view his merits, petitioner Jagwant is appointed Lambardar, in the village in place of respondent Mohinder. Order dated 20.5.2011 passed by learned Commissioner, Hissar Division, is also set aside. Revision Petition filed by petitioner, is accepted. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence on record that the petitioner is engaged in the business of shares and remains out of village most of the time and has been taking active part in politics as observed by the Financial Commissioner. It is further submitted that the Collector is the appointing authority whose decision should not be tinkered with until and unless there is any perversity in his order. 6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4. 7. The learned State counsel has submitted that there is no error in the order of the Financial Commissioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside because it is now well settled that the Collector is the appointing authority, who has to consider comparative merits of the parties aspiring to become Lambardar and until and unless any perversity is found in his order, the choice of the Collector is not to be altered by way of reappraisal of merits of the parties. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner is engaged in the business of shares and remains out of the village most of the time and takes part in the politics because the Financial Commissioner himself has observed that these facts have not been fully substantiated and then proceeded to observe that even if this issue is ignored then on a comparison of the qualification possessed by the petitioner and respondent No. 4, found respondent No. 4 to be more meritorious and appointed him as Lambardar in place of the petitioner. In my considered opinion this approach of the Financial Commissioner is totally unjustified and thus, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.