Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Singh vs Financial Commissioner Haryana And Ors on 4 November, 2014
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
-1-
CWP No.6660-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.6660-2012 (O & M)
Date of Decision:04.11.2014
Inder Singh
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent no.4.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)
CM-9365-2013 Allowed, as prayed for. Rejoinder and Annexure P-10 are taken on record.
CM-18258-2013 Allowed, as prayed for. Annexures R/4/4 and R/4/5 are taken on record.
CWP No.6660-2012 Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.11.12 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -2- CWP No.6660-2012 the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.2-Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar whereby order dated 21.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no.3-Collector Sirsa, has been set aside and respondent no.4-Dev Raj has been appointed as Lambardar (General) and order dated 14.03.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent no.1-Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of demise of Bansi Lal, Lambardar (General) of village Nagoki, District Sirsa, applications were invited from the interested persons by making proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. In furtherance of proclamation, 6 candidates submitted their applications. After hearing all the candidates, Sub Tehsildar vide his report dated 27.06.2011 recommended the name of respondent no.4-Dev Raj and sent the file to Sub Divisional Officer (C ), Sirsa. However, Sub Divisional Officer (C ), Sirsa recommended the name of petitioner-Inder Singh as Lambardar (General) of village Nagoki, Tehsil & District Sirsa. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found the petitioner to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 21.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) appointed him as Lambardar (General) of village Nagoki, Tehsil & District Sirsa. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no.4 preferred an appeal before respondent no.2-Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar which has been accepted vide impugned order dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.11.12 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -3- CWP No.6660-2012 and order dated 21.09.2011 passed by Collector Sirsa has been set aside holding that the Collector has ignored the documentary evidence and respondent no.4 has been appointed as Lambardar (General). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) before respondent no.1-Financial Commissioner, Haryana which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.03.2012 (Annexure P-3). Hence, this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent no.4. The petitioner passed B.A in the year 1972 from Punjab University. The petitioner also remained as NCC Cadet and was winner of 400 metre race. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is permanent resident of village Nagoki and is having 11 acres of agricultural land. After enquiry, it has become clear that date of birth of the petitioner is 02.11.1945 and he has rightly received the old age pension. The Gram Panchayat and respectables of village Nagoki also made recommendation in favour of petitioner as Lambardar of village. Learned counsel further contended that respondent no.4-Dev Raj is not residing in village. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case which got registered by the Tehsildar on flimsy grounds. Learned counsel further contended that impugned orders are based on surmises and conjectures and are not speaking one. The same have been passed on flimsy grounds.
PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.11.12 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -4- CWP No.6660-2012 Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent no.4 have vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that impugned orders are well reasoned and order of the Collector has rightly been set aside. Learned counsel further contended that respondent no.4 is just 50 years of age and having 24 acres of land. The father of respondent was the deceased Lambardar whose death has caused the incumbent vacancy. Even respondent no.4 was appointed as Sarbaha Lambardar. The ration- card (Annexure R4/3) reveals that he is resident of village Nagoki and is residing in the same village. Learned counsel further contended that respondent no.4 has never found to be involved in criminal case.
I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
The Lambardar is a village headman. His main job is the collection of revenue. He is paid fixed remuneration as well as some commission. The criterion for appointment to the post of Lambardar, inter alia, includes educational qualification, age, experience in working of Lambardari, land and property, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness.
Bansi Lal, Lambardar (General) of village Nagoki, Tehsil and District Sirsa died on 08.08.2010, giving rise to the situation for selecting a new Lambardar for the aforesaid village. Perusal of record shows that Collector had appointed respondent no.4 as Sarbrah Lambardar of village Nagoki in place of his father, vide order dated 09.03.1987. Vide impugned orders, preference has been given to the PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.11.12 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -5- CWP No.6660-2012 fact that respondent no.4 had been a Sarbrah Lambardar since long during which time no complaint had been received against him. His young age was another factor, which was taken into consideration while appointing him as Lambardar. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is more than 66 years of age whereas age of respondent no.4 is 52 years approximately. Respondent no.4 will be available for the post for a longer period and being younger would be in a position to discharge his duties more efficiently than the petitioner. The fact that respondent no.4 was a Sarbrah Lambardar and is younger than the petitioner also could not be easily ignored being very relevant factor to be considered. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon Major Singh vs. Financial commissioner, Cooperation, Pb. Chandigarh and others 2009(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 816 and Gian Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others 2009(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 34.
Admittedly, an FIR No.65 dated 18.05.2009, under Section 379 IPC was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Baragudha in which he has been acquitted, however, appeal preferred by Tehsildar is pending as per the affidavit dated 10.07.2014 filed by Dr. Anshaj Singh, IAS, District Collector, Sirsa. A person to be appointed on the post of Lambardar should be enjoying good reputation and unblemished image. The registration of criminal case against petitioner leaves a scar on his reputation, even though he has been acquitted. Moreover, appeal filed against acquittal of the petitioner is pending before Additional Sessions Judge.
Perusal of record shows that Halqa Patwari reported after PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.11.12 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -6- CWP No.6660-2012 verification from Lambardar, Sarpanch, Chairman of Block Samiti, Badhagudha and other persons that respondent no.4-Dev Raj has built a residential house in his field in village Nagoki and he is also having a residential house in Sirsa. Copy of ration-card (Annexure R-4/3) reveals that respondent no.4 is permanent resident of village Nagoki. Vide impugned orders, it has been rightly recorded that respondent no.4 is having a residential house in village Nagoki and is permanent resident of village Nagoki. Moreover, respondent no.4 is having 24 acres of land as against 11 acres possessed by the petitioner.
In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.
Dismissed.
04.11.2014 (Paramjeet Singh)
parveen kumar Judge
PARVEEN KUMAR
2014.11.12 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document