JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral) - Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Pehowa as well as the order dated 15.01.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 – Collector, Kurukshetra. 2. Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Sukhdev Singh, Chowkidar of village Shanti Nagar Kurdi, Sub Tehsil Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra, applications were invited from interested persons by making munadi in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from Sub Tehsildar. In pursuance of munadi, Deva Khan son of Masita Khan, Rafi Mohd. son of Ali Nawaz, Mohinder Singh son of Fakar Khan, Baljeet Singh son of Ram Lal and Roshan Lal son of Ram Gopal filed applications. At the end only two persons i.e. Deva Khan and Mohinder Singh remained in the fray. After completing formalities, matter came up for consideration before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found Deva Khan – respondent No.3 to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure P-5) appointed him as Chowkidar of the village. Petitioner – Mohinder Singh filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector vide order dated 15.01.2014 (Annexure P-6) dismissed the appeal. Hence, instant writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that cut off date for submission of applications for the post of Chowkidar was 24.02.2012 and at that point of time Punjab Chaukidara Rules were in force. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as per Rule 6 of the Punjab Chaukidara Rules opinion of the majority of the village headmen (Lambardar) shall prevail with regard to appointment of Chowkidar. As such appointment made by Sub Divisional Officer and order passed by Deputy Commissioner are not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is meritorious, sixth pass and a young man as compared to respondent No.3 who is old and uneducated person. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently contended that respondent No.3 has experience of Chowkidar and has rightly been appointed by the authorities. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is meritorious, sixth pass and a young man as compared to respondent No.3 who is old and uneducated person. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently contended that respondent No.3 has experience of Chowkidar and has rightly been appointed by the authorities. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Rule 6 of the Punjab Chaukidara Rules, 1965 reads as under: - “The nomination to the post of village watchman or of Daffadar shall be made by the village headman and where there are more village headmen than one, the opinion of the majority in number (unless there is some special provision to the contrary in the village administration paper) shall prevail. Where a village watchman or daffadar is to be appointed for a beat comprising more than one village, the opinion of the majority in number of the village headmen in such beat shall prevail.” 8. It is clear from the above extracted provision that opinion of the majority of Lambardars is the determining factor for appointing the Chowkidar. Unless special reasons are recorded by the appointing authorities, they cannot deviate from that procedure. In the present case, no special reasons have been recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer or the Deputy Commissioner nor any reference has been made as to how many Lambardars are in the village. Apparently the choice is contrary to the Rules. 9. It needs to be emphasised that Government of Haryana has amended the Rules and new Rules known as “Haryana Chowkidara (Watchman) Rules, 2011” have come into force vide notification dated 11.01.2013. Since the appointment to the post of Chowkidar was under the old Rules, new Rules were not applicable at that point of time. In these circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper that authorities should look into the provisions of law as applicable on the last date of submission of applications and thereafter pass fresh order after taking into consideration the opinion of the Lambardar(s) of the village as per Rule 6 of the Punjab Chaukidara Rules. 10. In view of above, impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer for passing fresh order as aforesaid. Parties are directed to appear before the Sub Divisional officer on 1.12.2014. 11. 10. In view of above, impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer for passing fresh order as aforesaid. Parties are directed to appear before the Sub Divisional officer on 1.12.2014. 11. Disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————