Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 February, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CWP No.3130 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.3130 of 2012
Date of Decision: February 21, 2012
Rajesh Kumar
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon; order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by Collector, Mahendergarh at Narnaul and order dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and order dated 18.05.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana.
Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused due to death of Sh. Harsahai on 13.08.2001, previous Lambardar of village Sagarpur, proclamation was got effected in the village. In pursuance of the proclamation Jile Singh and Govardhan came forward. The Collector after appreciating the merit of the candidates found Jile Singh to be a better and suitable candidate and appointed him as Lambardar vide order dated 18.11.2003. Against that order Govardhan filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner vide order CWP No.3130 of 2012 -2- dated 24.08.2005 accepted the appeal of Govardhan and remanded the case to the District Collector to decide the case afresh after verifying the allegations against Jile Singh for causing damage to the village road and against Goverdhan who was stated to be in illegal possession of the village pond. In compliance of the order passed by the Commissioner, the District Collector entrusted the enquiry to the Tehsildar who submitted the report to the District Collector. The District Collector, Mahendergarh instead of taking decision on the basis of enquiry as directed by the Commissioner, declared both the candidates unfit and ordered for fresh proceedings vide order dated 30.03.2006. In pursuance of fresh proceedings, six applicants submitted their applications. The District Collector, Mahendergarh vide order dated 19.03.2008 (Annexure P-2) appointed Rajesh Kumar as Lambardar of the Village. In the meantime, Jile Singh who was earlier contesting the fray filed an appeal against order dated 30.03.2006 by virtue of which fresh proceedings were initiated. The Commissioner vide order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-3) while accepting the appeal of Jile Singh specifically recorded a finding that the fact of initiation of fresh proceedings was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner, therefore the order dated 30.03.2006 is illegal. The Commissioner set aside the order dated 30.03.2006 and remanded the case to the Collector. In pursuance of order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, the District Collector again considered the candidatures of Jile Singh and Govardhan, who were contenders in the first round and appointed Jile Singh as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-
4). However, there is no mention of the fact that his predecessor CWP No.3130 of 2012 -3- (Collector) had already appointed Rajesh Kumar as Lambardar of the same village on 19.03.2008. This led to second round of litigation before the Commissioner. Rajesh Kumar and two others namely Satyabir Singh and Sukh Lal filed appeal before the Commissioner against the order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-4). All the appeal were heard and decided by the Commissioner vide common order dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure P-5). The Commissioner upheld the order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-4) of the District Collector, appointing Jile Singh as Lambardar of the Village. Dis-satisfied with the order of the Commissioner, Rajesh Kumar further preferred revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 18.05.2011 also upheld the order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-4) of the District Collector as well as order dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by Commissioner. Hence, the instant writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
There are two successive orders of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner in two different rounds of litigation. The first order dated 24.08.2005 passed by Commissioner is relevant to decide the controversy in the present case, whereby direction was issued to the District Collector to decide the case afresh after making enquiry into the allegations against both the candidates i.e.Jile Singh and Govardhan. Second order is 29.04.2008 passed by the Commissioner whereby again case was remanded to the District Collector with a specific finding that the District Collector should not initiate fresh proceedings but after taking the evidence CWP No.3130 of 2012 -4- of eligibility etc. from both candidates namely Jile Singh and Govardhan and comply with the direction issued by the predecessor vide order dated 24.08.2005 decide case on merits. Thereafter the order dated 12.11.2008 passed by the District Collector Mahendergarh became significant in compliance to order dated 29.4.2008 whereby he was directed not to start fresh proceedings. The Collector vide order dated 12.11.2008 has appointed Jile Singh as Lambardar of the Village and the appeal(s) preferred by Rajesh Kumar and two others namely Satyabir Singh and Sukh Lal has also been dismissed by the Commissioner by passing a well reasoned order specifically dealing with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. This order has been rightly affirmed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 18.05.2011.
The fresh proceedings initiated by the Collector wherein petitioner-Rajesh Kumar, Satyavir and Sukh Lal were contesting are null and void. The Collector was not competent to initiate fresh proceedings to fill up the post of Lambardar which fell vacant due to death of Har Sahai, previous Lambardar. Earlier proceedings to fill up the same vacant post had not attained finality. So far as the appointment of Jile Singh is concerned, this is based on the first process started to fill up the vacancy caused due to death of Sh. Har Sahai (deceased), previous Lambardar. All the authorities have concurrently found Jile Singh as suitable and fit candidate for appointment as Lambardar. It is settled law that the choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside unless it is perverse. Present petitioner has otherwise also no right to challenge the appointment of respondent No.7-Jile Singh since the petitioner never applied for appointment as Lambardar when earlier proclamation was made. CWP No.3130 of 2012 -5-
In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.
However, vide separate order of even date Court on its own motion proceedings have been initiated against the Collector.
21.02.2012 (PARAMJEET SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE CWP No.3130 of 2012 -6- In CWP No.3130 of 2012 -1- Court on its own motion ****
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court takes a suo motu notice of the fact that for filling up one vacancy of same village i.e. Sagarpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh caused on account of death of previous Lambardar, two parallel proceedings have been initiated. On the one side, on an appeal, the Commissioner vide order dated 24.08.2005 remanded the case of Jile Singh and Govardhan, with a direction to the District Collector to enquire into the allegations against the candidates and then pass fresh order. On the other hand, the Collector without complying with the order dated 24.08.2005 ordered for fresh proceedings for the appointment of Lambardar of the said village, which resulted into sorry state of affairs, indicating malfunctioning of the office of the District Collector, Mahendergarh at Narnaul. The act of the District Collector prima facie appears to be not of responsible officer. It is also prima facie indicative of the fact that there is no coordination between the officials and record with regard to appointment of Lambardar village-wise and the record is not being maintained properly in the office of the District Collector which is required to be maintained for the purpose of smooth functioning.
In view of above, a notice is issued to the District Collector, Mahendergarh at Narnaul, returnable for 23.04.2012 to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against the District Collector for creating the mess in filling up the post of Lambardar. The District Collector, Mahendergarh is directed to CWP No.3130 of 2012 -7- submit his reply to explain as to why fresh proceedings to fill up CWP No.3130 of 2012 -8- CWP No.3130 of 2012 -2- the post of Lambardar of Village Sagarpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh on account of death of Har Sahai, previous Lambardar were initiated when the earlier proceedings were still pending, which had not attained finality, before the next date of hearing.
21.02.2012 (PARAMJEET SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE