Present: Mr. Manohar Lall Advocate Vs. Ashok Kumar ........ Petitioner - Court Judgment

LPA No.1828 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- LPA No.1828 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:

20. 11.2012 Ashok Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajive Bhalla Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal -.- Present: Mr.Manohar Lall, Advocate for the appellant -.- 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Rekha Mittal, J.

The appellant prays for setting aside order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby his writ petition has been dismissed.

Counsel for the appellant submits that choice of the Collector in favour of respondent No.6 (Naresh Kumar) was set aside by the Commissioner by recording a finding that the order passed by the Collector is perverse.

It is contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in recording a finding that the Commissioner could not set aside the order passed by the Collector.

It is further argued that the Commissioner has rightly decided the appeal of the appellant by holding that he is more meritorious as compared to respondent No.6.

It is further argued that the LPA No.1828 o”

2. Collector and the Financial Commissioner have failed to consider the experience of the appellant as Sarbarah Lambardar which entitle him to have a preference over the selected candidate.

We have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

On accrual of vacancy to the office of Lambardar of village Lukhi, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari (Haryana).process was initiated, to fill up that vacancy, by the revenue authorities.

After considering the comparative merit of appellant and respondent No.6, the Collector, Rewari, passed an administrative order, whereby, he exercised his choice in favour of Naresh Kumar (respondent No.6).The appellant preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Collector, Rewari, which was accepted by the Commissioner and the order of the Collector was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be appointed as Lambardar.

The order of the Commissioner was challenged by Naresh Kumar before the Financial Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner agreed with the decision of the Collector and restored the appointment of respondent No.6 - Naresh Kumar as Lambardar of village Lukhi.

The learned Single Judge has affirmed the orders of the Collector and the Financial Commissioner, by rejecting the submissions of the appellant.

There is no dispute about the settled proposition of law that the decision in respect of appointment of a Lambardar is administrative in nature.

The Collector has to appreciate the comparative merit of contesting candidates.

The choice of the Collector cannot be lightly interfered with unless the same is perverse, arbitrary or offends any provision of law.

Counsel for the appellant has failed to substantiate his contention that LPA No.1828 o”

3. choice of Collector in favour of respondent No.6 - Naresh Kumar suffered from any such disability, warranting interference by the Commissioner.

So far as the plea of the appellant in respect of his experience of having worked as Sarbarah Lambardar, if such a plea is accepted by giving preference to a Sarbarah Lambardar, it would, in essence, amount to giving preference to a hereditary claim, when, otherwise, the provision in respect of hereditary claim offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in 'Karnail Singh versus The State of Haryana etc'., 1973 PLJ 676.

We would like to record that the State of Haryana has rightly deleted the provision in respect of hereditary claim.

In view of what has been discussed herein above, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.

(Rekha Mittal) Judge (Rajive Bhalla) Judge 20.11.2012 mohan