Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 347 (PNJ)

RamKumar v. Financial Commissioner Haryana

2013-03-13

Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal

body2013
JUDGMENT Rekha Mittal, J. The appellant lays challenge to order dated 17.08.2012, allowing the writ petition filed by contesting respondent No. 4, while setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner qua appointment of the appellant as Lambardar of village Ram Saran Majra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No. 4 (Rati Ram) is more than 70 years of age and is illiterate. The appointment of Rati Ram as Lambardar of the village by the District Collector, Kurukshetra, was set aside by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, who held that the appellant being more meritorious in view of his younger age, educational qualifications and reputation etc., is fit and suitable to be appointed as Lambardar of the village. The order passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in a revision, preferred by Rati Ram. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner was challenged before this Court by way of writ petition and the case was remanded to the Financial Commissioner, for a decision afresh, after taking into account the age of Rati Ram, his educational qualifications and service rendered by him as an exserviceman. It is argued with vehemence that the Financial Commissioner, has, after due consideration of the mater, in the light of directions, issued by this Court, held in favour of the appellant as he was found to be a better candidate keeping in view his younger age and his being educationally qualified being 8th class pass. Rati Ram had only one factor in his favour that he is an exserviceman. According to counsel, old age of respondent No. 4 certainly renders him unfit and unsuitable to be appointed as Lambardar of the village as Lambardar has to do lot of running around in discharge of his official duties. Counsel for contesting respondent No. 4 submits that the District Collector, Kurukshetra, on appraisal of comparative merit of contesting candidates, held in favour of respondent no. 4, as he is an exserviceman and is otherwise, physically fit to perform his functions as headman of the village. It is contended that the mere fact that respondent No. 4 is about 70 years old does not create a bar against his appointment as a Lambardar. 4, as he is an exserviceman and is otherwise, physically fit to perform his functions as headman of the village. It is contended that the mere fact that respondent No. 4 is about 70 years old does not create a bar against his appointment as a Lambardar. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, but find no reason to accept the appeal. Admittedly, the appellant and respondent No. 4 were contenders for the post of scheduled caste Lambardar of village Ram Saran Majra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The District Collector, Kurukshetra, on appreciation of the merits and demerits of candidates held in favour of respondent No. 4. The order passed by the District Collector was set aside by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, in appeal and decision of the Commissioner was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, in revision. The matter was remanded to the Financial Commissioner for fresh consideration as per directions, issued by this Court in writ petition, filed by respondent No. 4. Subsequent thereto, on reconsideration of the matter, the Financial Commissioner again held in favour of the appellant. The orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner were held to be unsustainable in the impugned order passed in the writ petition. There cannot be any quarrel with the settled position of law that the order with respect to appointment of Lambardar is primarily administrative in nature. The decision of the District Collector is to be honoured unless the same suffers from any palpable error or patent illegality or perversity. The sole contention of the appellant is that as the selected candidate is 70 years of age, he is not fit for appointment to the post of Lambardar. No doubt, the age of a candidate is a relevant factor for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ramand others’, 2009 (3) SCC 439 , has held that it is now well settled proposition of law, keeping in view the decisions in regard to the appointment of Lambardar in the State of Punjab that age of a candidate is a relevant factor. However, the age of a person is to be considered in the context of his physical ability and capacity to discharge his duties as a headman of the village. However, the age of a person is to be considered in the context of his physical ability and capacity to discharge his duties as a headman of the village. No such plea has been raised that the appellant is incapacitated from discharging the functions of a Lambardar, in view of his old age. Respondent No. 4 started performing his duties as Lambardar on the basis of his appointment by the District Collector. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that any complaint was made against him that he is not able to render his services properly owing to his old age. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 is an exserviceman and has rendered service to the nation, which is a relevant consideration. Invariably, the retired/discharged members of the Armed Forces are physically fit, energetic and agile. In this scenario, rejecting the claim of respondent No.4 on the sole ground of his age may amount to injustice to him. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to accept the contention of the appellant that respondent No. 4 is not eligible to be appointed as Lambardar. We, thus, do not find any error of law or of jurisdiction in the impugned order as would call for interference. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.