Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 261 (PNJ)

Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana

2013-02-22

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

body2013
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.;— This order proposes to decide these two identical writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.10700 of 2011 (Subhash Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others) and CWP No.19631 of 2011 (Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana and others), having been filed against the same impugned orders. The matter pertains to the appointment of Lambardar. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being culled out from CWP No.10700 of 2011. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of these writ petitions, are that consequent upon the death of earlier Lambardar, Sh. Nathi Singh, one post of Lambardar fell vacant in the village of the parties. Process was initiated to fill up this post. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) recommended the name of Smt. Geeta Singh-respondent no.2 for appointment to the post of Lambardar. After a careful comparison of the merits of the candidates, District Collector, Palwal, vide his order dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure P-1), appointed Smt. Geeta Singh-respondent no.2 to the post of Lambardar of village Garhi Patti Hodal. Dissatisfied, three appeals were filed before the Commissioner. One by Rajbir-petitioner in CWP No.19631 of 2011, who is respondent no. 3 in CWP No.10700 of 2011 and the second appeal was filed by Smt. Shashirespondent no.4 herein, whereas the third appeal was filed by the present petitioner Subhash Chand. Appeals of Rajbir and Smt. Shashi did not find favour with the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, whereas appeal of petitioner Subhash Chand was accepted, vide his order dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) remanding the case to the District Collector, Palwal, with a direction to appoint Subhash Chand-petitioner as the Lambardar. Three revisions were filed before the Financial Commissioner. ROR No.1 of 2010-11 (Smt. Geeta Singh Vs. Subhash Chand and others), ROR No.42 of 2010-11 Smt. Shashi Vs. Subhash Chand and others and ROR No.43 of 2010-11 (Rajbir Vs. Subhash Chand and others). The Financial Commissioner, vide common order dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure P-3), accepted the revision petition of Smt. Geeta Singh, restoring the order passed by the District Collector appointing her as Lambardar, whereas other two revision petitions filed by Rajbir-petitioner in CWP No.19631 of 2011 and Smt. Shashirespondent no.3 were dismissed. Subhash Chand and others). The Financial Commissioner, vide common order dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure P-3), accepted the revision petition of Smt. Geeta Singh, restoring the order passed by the District Collector appointing her as Lambardar, whereas other two revision petitions filed by Rajbir-petitioner in CWP No.19631 of 2011 and Smt. Shashirespondent no.3 were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the above said orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue,Haryana, these two writ petitions have been filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement has been filed only on behalf of respondent Smt.Geeta Singh in both the cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order of the Collector was passed on wrong appreciation of facts, it was rightly upset by the Commissioner, appointing Subhash Chand-petitioner as the Lambardar. He further submits that the Financial Commissioner has committed error of law, while upsetting the order of the Commissioner. He next contended that since the petitioner was having better merits than respondent no.2, impugned orders may be set aside by allowing the present writ petition. Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner Rajbir submits that the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner, as well as the Financial Commissioner were illegal, because his better merit was illegally ignored by the respondent revenue authorities. He prays for acceptance of his writ petition and for setting aside the impugned orders. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the order passed by the District Collector, appointing Smt. Geeta Singh as Lambardar was in accordance with the true facts of the case and also as per the relevant provisions of law. The Collector has compared the merits of both the candidates before arriving at a just conclusion in favour of respondent no.2. He next contended that the choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with, until and unless the order was found to be suffering from patent illegality or perversity. Finally, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions submitting that both the writ petitions were misconceived and without any substance. He next contended that the choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with, until and unless the order was found to be suffering from patent illegality or perversity. Finally, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions submitting that both the writ petitions were misconceived and without any substance. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that these are the cases, wherein no interference at the hands of this court is warranted, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. It is the settled proposition of law that in the case of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of the Collector is generally not to be interfered with. Although, it is not the absolute rule in every given fact situation, yet the higher revenue authorities will not interfere in the choice of the Collector, until and unless the order has been found to be based on misrepresentation of facts or found to be suffering from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any such patent illegality or perversity, either in the order passed by the District Collector or by the Financial Commissioner, so as to warrant interference at the hands of this court. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the District Collector, as well as the Financial Commissioner have committed no error of law, while passing their respective impugned orders. 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. 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. 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. 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. Resultantly, both the writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed.