Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kharati Lal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 22 January, 2014
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CWP No. 22426 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 22426 of 2012
Date of decision : 22.01.2014
Kharati Lal
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana & ors.
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana.
Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent no. 3. RAJAN GUPTA J.
Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur. His appointment was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar. The said authority came to the conclusion that there was recommendation of three Nambardar of village Mado Haldri Tehsil Chhachhrouli District Yamuna Nagar in favour of appellant (respondent no. 3). This apart, respondent no. 1 (petitioner herein) had outstanding loan towards the Society. He, thus, set-aside the appointment of the petitioner and appointed respondent no. 3 namely Jasmeet as Chowkidar of the village.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order inter alia on the ground that there was only two Namberdars in the village. Thus, there could not be recommendation by three of them. He has received this Kumar Ajay 2014.01.23 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 22426 of 2012 2 information under the Right to Information Act. Besides, petitioner had a very good record as would be evident from perusal of certificate, annexure P6. According to him, all these factors were not taken into consideration by Deputy Commissioner while directing his removal.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 has, however, submitted that respondent-Jasmeet being a better candidate, Deputy Commissioner rightly directed his appointment.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that certificate, annexure P6 was issued to the petitioner by Sarpanch of village Mado Haldri Tehsil Chhachhrouli District Yamuna Nagar. A perusal thereof shows that Sarpanch had found that petitioner was efficiently working as Chowkidar. This apart, stand of the petitioner before this court is that there being only two Nambardars in the village, recommendation of three could not be in favour of respondent no. 3.
Keeping in view entire facts and circumstances of the case, I set-aside the order dated 19.09.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar. The matter is remanded to the same authority for decision afresh after hearing the parties. However, respondent no. 3 shall continue to be Chowkidar till the decision of the matter by Deputy Commissioner.
Petition is allowed in these terms.
January 22, 2014 (RAJAN GUPTA)
Ajay JUDGE
Kumar Ajay
2014.01.23 15:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document