Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 433 (PNJ)

Ramesh Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana

2013-04-03

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

body2013
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.;— The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana-respondent No.1, upholding the orders dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-2) and 24.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division and the Collector, Yamuna Nagar, respectively, thereby appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Facts first. Consequent upon the death of late Sh. Raghbir Singh, Lambardar, resident of village Hargarh, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, one post of Scheduled caste Lambardar fell vacant. Proceedings were initiated to fill up this post. Finally, three candidates remained in fray. Tehsildar, Jagahdri as well as SDO (Civil) Jagadhri, both recommended the name of respondent No.4 for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Thereafter, after considering, discussing and appreciating merits of all the candidates, Collector, Yamuna Nagar appointed respondent No.4 as Scheduled Caste Lambardar, vide his order dated 24.11.2010 (Annexure P-3). Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-2) and revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 5.2.2013 (Annexure P-1), upholding the orders passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division and the District Collector. Hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent revenue authorities have proceeded on an erroneous and misconceived approach, while passing their respective impugned orders. He further submits that the petitioner was better candidate than respondent No.4. He also submits that better and meritorious candidature of the petitioner was illegally ignored by the respondent revenue authorities. Finally, he prays for allowing the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present writ petition is devoid of any merit and without any substance. Thus, it is liable to be dismissed for the following more than one reasons. A combined reading of the impugned orders, Annexures P-1 to P-3, passed by the respondent revenue authorities would show that comparative merits of the petitioner as well as of respondent No.4 have been duly considered and rightly appreciated by the respondent revenue authorities, while passing the impugned orders. A combined reading of the impugned orders, Annexures P-1 to P-3, passed by the respondent revenue authorities would show that comparative merits of the petitioner as well as of respondent No.4 have been duly considered and rightly appreciated by the respondent revenue authorities, while passing the impugned orders. After discussing and comparing each and every aspect of the matter, including comparative merits of both the candidates, the District Collector, Yamuna Nagar rightly came to the conclusion that respondent No.4 was the best choice for appointment to the post of Lambardar, vide impugned order dated 24.11.2010 (Annexure P-3). No patent illegality has been found in the order passed by the District Collector. Similarly, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, before dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, again considered and appreciated comparative merits of both the candidates. Respondent No.4 was found enjoying clean image in the society. He was a blood donor. He had deposited more amount in the small saving schemes than the petitioner. Respondent No.4 was a graduate and had been recommended for appointment by the Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner again reconsidered and reappreciated comparative merits of the candidates. After hearing the parties, he also found respondent No.4 to be much better candidate than the petitioner. Respondent No.4 was found having more land holding, better contribution to the State in the form of small saving scheme and was also blood donor. Thus, the Financial Commissioner also did not commit any error of law while passing his order dated 5.2.2013 (Annexure P-1), thereby rightly upholding the orders passed by the Commissioner and the District Collector. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in any of the impugned orders passed by the respondent revenue authorities, which is sine qua non for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the cases of this nature. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner. Further, it is the settled proposition of law that ordinarily, choice of the Collector, in the cases of appointment of Lambardar, should not be interfered with by the higher revenue authorities. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner. Further, it is the settled proposition of law that ordinarily, choice of the Collector, in the cases of appointment of Lambardar, should not be interfered with by the higher revenue authorities. Although it is not an absolute rule, yet choice of the Collector would be interfered with only when the order is found to be suffering from patent illegality or perversity. 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 the present writ petition is bereft of any merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is ordered to be dismissed.