CM No.3753 of 2013 in/and LPA No.1472 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CM No.3753 of 2013 in/and LPA No.1472 of 2013 Date of decision : 9.9.2013 Shamsher Singh ........Appellant versus The Financial Commissioner (Revenue).Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.S.Sandhawalia Present:- Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant --- Jasbir Singh, J.
(Oral) CM No.3753 of 2013 : After hearing counsel for the applicant-appellant, application is allowed.
Delay of 51 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
LPA No.1472 of 2013 : This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 13.5.2013, dismissing CWP No.10227 of 2013 filed by the appellant.
In that writ petition, the appellant has laid challenge to an order dated 1.3.2011 (P-1).passed by the Collector, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of Village Chaku Ladana, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.
Further challenge was laid to an order dated 8.1.2013 (P-3).Kumar Ashwani passed by the Financial Commissioner, allowing appeal, filed by the above 2013.09.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM No.3753 of 2013 in/and LPA No.1472 of 2013 -2- said respondent.
The Financial Commissioner vide above order reversed an order passed by the Commissioner on 27.7.2011, appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the above said village.
As per facts on record, on accrual of post of Lambardar, applications were invited.
After getting report from the Field Revenue Staff, the appellant and respondent No.4 emerged as the contesting candidates.
The Collector vide order dated 12.1.2010 appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village.
That order was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner in appeal, which was allowed on 31.3.2010.
Against that order, respondent No.4 went in revision, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner on 7.12.2010 and matter was remitted to the Collector to decide it afresh.
The Collector on appraisal of comparative merits of both the candidates, vide order dated 1.3.2011, appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village.
Relevant portion of the order reads thus :- “I came to the conclusion after considering the merits and demerits of the candidates that Om parkash is proved more eligible candidate for the post of Lambardar because Lambardar come under the category of respectable of village and it is necessary for Lambardari work every time.
Profession of candidate Om Parkash is agriculture and he remains in village while Shamsher Singh candidate is permanent agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India and he has to go out side the village for his routine work.
So he cannot be available for Lambardari work for villagers every time due to the remaining busy insurance work.
Naib Kumar Ashwani Tehsildar and SDO (Civil).Guhla recommended the name of 2013.09.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM No.3753 of 2013 in/and LPA No.1472 of 2013 -3- candidate Om Parkash for appointment as Lambardar.
The hereditary claim of the candidate Shamsher Singh is not proved.
Otherwise also vide notification of Government amendment has been made in the Rule 15 of Punjab Land Revenue Act and as per provisions of this rule, Lambardar of General Category has to appoint while post of Lambardar is of SC Category.”
.
It was noted in favour of respondent No.4 that he is always available in the village as he is engaged in agriculture work.
Against the appellant, it was said that he, being full time agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India, may not be easily available to the villageRs.The Commissioner in appeal reversed that order on 27.7.2011 (P-2).simply by stating that to be an agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India is no disqualification.
Appointment of respondent No.4 was set aside and the appellant was appointed as Lambardar of the Village.
In revision petition filed by respondent No.4, the Financial Commissioner looked into the entire matter and came to a conclusion that the choice made by the Collector needs to be respected, it was so said keeping in view the established law on the subject.
Relevant portion of the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the Financial Commissioner reads thus :- “It is true that the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar in January 2010.
The Commissioner had appointed respondent as Lambardar on appeal.
On further appeal before the Financial Commissioner, it was clearly mentioned in the order that the Commissioner should not have set aside the order of the Collector and if there was any issue, he would have drawn the attention of the Collector towards any illegality or perversity and would have allowed the Collector to issue fresh Kumar Ashwani 2013.09.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM No.3753 of 2013 in/and LPA No.1472 of 2013 -4- order.
The Collector has again found that the petitioner is fit to be appointed as Lambardar.
The order of the Commissioner does not mentioned about any illegality or perversity in the order of the Collector.
The respondent cannot be given any benefit of hereditary claim of being grandson.
The benefit of hereditary claim, if any, is restricted to the son.
Further in a case of Scheduled Caste Lambardar, the hereditary claim is not considered.
As regards the qualifications and other issue, the Collector is the best judge to take over all view in this case.
The petitioner has also been favoured by the filed officers below the Collector level and this recommendation carries weight when the Collector made the decision.
The order of the Collector should not have been interfered with by the learned Commissioner, especially, when the order of the Financial Commissioner was already there on the file.
Therefore, setting aside the order by the Commissioner becomes necessary.
The order of the Collector regarding appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is restored.”
.
The appellant then filed CWP No.10227 of 2013, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 13.5.2013.
It was noted that order passed by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner are, as per law, that ordinarily choice of the Collector, in case of appointment of Lambardar, should not be disturbed, unless the order is suffering from any patent illegality or perversity.
Before us, no such illegality has been shown in the orders passed by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner.
If, on merits, a candidate, may be, having an edge over his rival, the Collector is the best judge to see suitability of the candidate for the post of Lambardar.
Kumar Ashwani 2013.09.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM No.3753 of 2013 in/and LPA No.1472 of 2013 -5- Respondent No.4 is always available in the village whereas, to the contrary, as per nature of work of the appellant, he will have to leave the village most of the time.
No case is made out to interfere in the orders under challenge.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (G.S.Sandhawalia) Judge 9.9.2013 Ashwani Kumar Ashwani 2013.09.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document