Civil Writ Petition No. 12631 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Civil Writ Petition No. 12631 of 2006 Date of decision: 12.11.2008 Sanjeev Kumar ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Surinder Kumar Bishnoi,DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 4 Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 5 -.- J.S.Khehar , J. (Oral) The controversy raised in the instant writ petition relates to the appointment of a Lambardar for village Gawaliar Panch Gaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. Consequent upon the receipt of applications for appointment against the post of Lambardar, the petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, was recommended by the Collector, Gurgaon, for appointment as Lambardar of Village Gawaliar Panch Gaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid recommendation, respondent No. 5, Krishan Kumar, preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector. The appeal was allowed, inasmuch as, the order passed by the Collector, Gurgaon, was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Gurgaon, for Civil Writ Petition No. 12631 of 2006 2 re-determination on merits. The Collector, Gurgaon, on re-consideration of the matter, by his order dated 15.07.2003 (Annexure P-1), arrived at the conclusion, that Krishan Kumar, respondent No. 5, was the more suitable of the two candidates, and accordingly, appointed Krishan Kumar, as Lambardar of village Gawaliar Panch Gaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. Dissatisfied with the order passed in favour of respondent No. 5, Krishan Kumar, the petitioner, herein, namely, Sanjeev Kumar, first preferred an appeal, and then a revision petition. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, by an order dated 15.07.2004 (Annexure P-2). Likewise, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 06.10.2004 (Annexure P-3) by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. Dissatisfied with the orders dated 15.07.2003 (Annexure P-1), 15.07.2004 (Annexure P-2) and 06.10.2004 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner has approached this Court so as to challenge the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities, in appointing Krishan Kumar, respondents No.5, as Lambardar of village Gawaliar Panch Gaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties. Insofar as the credentials of the petitioner are concerned, it is stated, that he was 27 years of age; owned 4 kanals 6 marlas of land; had qualified the 10th class examination and his father was the previous Lambardar. As against the aforesaid, respondent No. 5 was 34 years of age; owned 3 kanals of land; and had qualified the 11th class examination. Civil Writ Petition No. 12631 of 2006 3 Besides, certain other fringe claims on the basis of which, he claimed superiority over Sanjeev Kumar, the petitioner herein. If the relative merits of the candidates as has been noticed hereinabove are taken into consideration, there can be hardly any choice between one or the other. Irrespective of the conclusion drawn hereinabove, only one of the two candidates has to be chosen. The Collector, Gurgaon, as well as , the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, have chosen respondent No. 5, for appointment against the post of Lambardar. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid determination, nor can the said determination be termed as perverse. It is only when a perverse order is passed selecting a candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar ignoring a candidate far superior to him, there can be interference at the level of the appellate or revsional authorities. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, we are of the view, that the selection of Lambardar was made after due consideration. One of the primary issue of consideration, which weighed with the authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, was that he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, for the commission of an offence under Sections 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Although there can be no denial about the fact of the petitioner having been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, yet it can also not be ignored, that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon dated 10.11.2003, convicting Krishan Kumar was impugned by him, by preferring an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, and the appeal preferred by Krishan Kumar was dismissed on 17.08.2004. In spite of the conviction of the petitioner, as has been noticed Civil Writ Petition No. 12631 of 2006 4 hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that Krishan Kumar is no different from the petitioner, inasmuch as, criminal proceedings were also initiated against Krishan Kumar, respondent No. 5 under Sections 323, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Although the instant contention at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner is right, we are of the view, that no cognizance can be taken of the initiation of the criminal proceedings against Krishan Kumar (respondent No. 5) on account of the fact, that the said criminal proceedings have since culminated in the acquittal of respondent No. 5 at the hands of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon (vide his order/judgment dated 10.11.2003). In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the selection of Krishan Kumar, respondent No. 5 against the post of Lambardar. As such, we find no ground to interfere in the impugned orders, referred to hereinabove. Dismissed. [J.S.Khehar] Judge [Nirmaljit Kaur] Judge November 12, 2008 mohan