Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 176 (PNJ)

Bija Singh v. State of Haryana

2013-02-12

Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal

body2013
JUDGMENT Rekha Mittal, J. The present appeal lays challenge to order dated 09.01.2013, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was appointed as Lambardar of village Sarai Sukhi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, vide order dated 29.11.2005, passed by the District Collector, Kurukshetra. Appeal filed by respondent No. 6 was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. The Financial Commissioner, also dismissed the revision preferred by respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11505 of 2009, which was allowed, vide order dated 16.08.2010 and the matter was remitted to the Financial LPA No. 294 of 2013 (O&M) 2 Commissioner to pass a fresh order in the light of observations made in the order. The Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 07.12.2010, set aside order dated 11.04.2007, passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and remanded the case to the Commissioner for passing a fresh order after hearing both parties. The Commissioner, vide order dated 02.05.2012, found both candidates ineligible for the post of Lambardar and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Thanesar, for inviting fresh applications from the eligible persons. It is submitted that the appellant never submitted any application, requesting for issuance of 'Below Poverty Line' (BPL) card or incorporating his name in the list of BLP families. According to counsel, it is established that the name of the appellant was included in the list of BPL families on the basis of a survey conducted by the State Government and as soon as the appellant learnt about this error, he submitted an application and his name was deleted from the list of BLP families. It is further argued that as the Commissioner has held that the appellant is ineligible for being considered for the post of Lambardar, a great prejudice has been caused to him without any mistake or fault on his part. We have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the records. Admittedly, the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Thanesar, invited applications to fill up the post of Lambardar till 20.06.2005. The appellant was appointed as Lambardar, vide order dated 29.11.2005. The Commissioner has recorded, in his order dated 02.05.2012, that as per report received from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, the appellant received ration for the months of June, 2005 to October, 2006 on the basis of his BPL card. The appellant was appointed as Lambardar, vide order dated 29.11.2005. The Commissioner has recorded, in his order dated 02.05.2012, that as per report received from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, the appellant received ration for the months of June, 2005 to October, 2006 on the basis of his BPL card. He also received ration on this card from August, 2008 to October, 2009. The fact that the appellant received ration on the basis of a BPL card during the relevant period and even subsequent to his appointment as Lambardar, falsifies and belies his plea that he was not aware that his name was included in the list of BPL families. The Commissioner has rightly recorded a finding of fact that the appellant has wrongly got issued a BPL card, which reflects on his character and credentials, making him ineligible to be appointed as Lambardar of the village. As the appellant was found to be a person whose character is under cloud, the Financial Commissioner, rightly rejected his claim of eligibility to the post of Lambardar. In this view of the matter, we find no error and infirmity much less illegality in the order, passed by revenue authorities, duly affirmed by the learned Single Judge. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed.