Punjab-Haryana High Court
***** vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 November, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No.24468 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.24468 of 2013
Date of Decision: 08.11.2013
*****
Surender
. . . .Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . . Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The post of Lambardar (General Category) of Village Lad, Tehsil Badhra, District Bhiwani fell vacant on the demise of Ghadsi Ram Lambardar. The process to fill up the vacant post was started by inviting applications through Munadi. The Tehsildar and SDO (Civil), Dadri made recommendation in favour of respondent No.4 to the Collector, Bhiwani. However, the petitioner was chosen by the Collector, inter alia, being the grandson of deceased Lambardar and respondent No.4 could not found favour with him because he had land in Rajasthan due to which he would not be available in the village. The order of the Collector was upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner CWP No.24468 of 2013 -2- vide their orders dated 6.9.2010 and 29.9.2011 respectively. Respondent No.4 challenged all the aforesaid orders by way of CWP No.20588 of 2011 which was allowed vide order dated 22.6.2012 and after setting aside all the orders, the matter was remanded back to the District Collector for decision afresh.
The petitioner challenged the order of the writ court by way of intra Court appeal bearing LPA No.767 of 2012 in which, vide order dated 18.10.2012, the order of the learned Single Judge was modified and in spite of remanding the case back to the District Collector, it was remanded back to the Financial Commissioner for deciding it afresh. After the remand, the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 26.8.2013 allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.4 with the following observation: -
"I have heard both the counsels and gone through the records carefully. Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and 2nd Grade have recommended Shri Vinod for the post of Lambardar of Village Lad, Tehsil Dadhra, District Bhiwani. However, Collector has disagreed with the recommendations of Assistant Collector Ist Grade and 2nd Grade. While he has provided comparison between the two candidates on various CWP No.24468 of 2013 -3- counts, he has based his judgment on two grounds. Firstly, Sh. Surinder is grand son of the deceased Lambardar and therefore, he has knowledge of Lambardari. Secondly, Sh. Vinod has land in Rajasthan. He keeps going to Rajasthan. As such he will not be available in the Village which is an essential requirement for Lambardari. Because of these two grounds, he has given the verdict in favour of Sh. Surinder. The Commissioner has agreed with the order of Collector holding that the order of Collector is not perverse.
It is a fact that Sh. Surinder is the grand son of the deceased Lambardar. However, this cannot be the basis to conclude that Sh. Surinder has the knowledge of Lambardari. Being the grand son, does not automatically guarantee experience of Lambardari. This has to be proved with material facts which have not been done in this case and therefore, there is no reason to believe that Sh. Surinder has CWP No.24468 of 2013 -4- acquired experience of Lambardar from his grand-father. Sh. Vinod has land in Rajasthan. The learned Counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of the Sale Deed of the land measuring 24 Bigha 5 Biswa. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the land has been jointly purchased by three brothers. The land in question is un- irrigated and does not have any source of irrigation. It is totally rain-fed. All this is proved from the description of the land given on page 3 of the Sale Deed. There is no evidence on the file that Sh. Vinod is frequent visitor to Rajasthan adversely affecting his presence in the Village. It is not known from where the Collector has brought this fact and concluded that Sh. Vinod will not be available in the Village. Against these facts, the conclusion of Collector is pre-sumptuous, far-fetched and unsubstantiated, and therefore, deserves to be ignored.
I have compared both the candidates, there is hardly any difference between CWP No.24468 of 2013 -5- them on the count of age, education, Character and landholding. The father of Sh. Vinod was an ex-serviceman. This fact is under no dispute. As per Rule 15 (c), the service rendered to be the State by a candidate or by his family is one of the criteria to be considered for appointment as Lambardar. Sh. Vinod scores over Shri Surinder on this account. Rest of the attributes remaining similar, I find Sh. Vinod to be a better candidate. Hence, appoint Shri Vinod as Lambardar of Village Lad, Tehsil Badhara District Bhiwani."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been appointed by the Collector, whose choice cannot be interfered with until and unless there is any perversity in his order and since there is no perversity, therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
As a matter of fact, the petitioner has been given preference by the Collector being the grandson of deceased Lambardar otherwise as per the Naksha Lambardari, CWP No.24468 of 2013 -6- respondent No.4 has better prospects than the petitioner. The Naksha Lambardari is reproduced as under: -
Name of Caste Age Education Character Landed Ac Ist Special Remarks candidate Property & AC 2nd Grade Surender Jat 35 10+2 Good 3acres 1. Grandson of and 22 deceased acres in Nambardar the 2. 19 witnesses name of appeared the 3. Permanent father member of red cross Vinod Jat 29 10+2 Good 3 Acres AC Ist 1. Permanent Grade member of and red cross.
AC 2. 17 witnesses
IInd appeared
Grade 3. Rehabilitation
and
Foundation
course.
4. Son of
Retired Army
person.
5. Educated
from
Pantanjali
Yogpeeth
The Financial Commissioner has also found that the land at Rajasthan was purchased by three brothers jointly. It is un-irrigated and is dependent upon rain. Even otherwise there is no evidence brought on file that respondent No.4 has been frequently visiting Rajasthan leaving his village.
Thus, I do not find any error in the impugned order dated 26.8.2013 passed by the Financial Commissioner. Insofar as the advantage to the petitioner CWP No.24468 of 2013 -7- being the grandson of the deceased Lambardar is concerned, the hereditary claim has already been held to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 08.11.2013 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2013.11.14 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document