Civil Writ Petition No.13748 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13748 of 2009 Date of Decision:01.11.2011 Narender Singh ......Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Manohar Lall, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of death of Ram Kumar, the post of Lambardar of Village Shahadat Nagar, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari, had fallen vacant. 2. Having ignored the merits and only taking into consideration the solitary fact that petitioner-Narender Singh is posted as Assistant Development Officer in the Agriculture Department, the District Collector, Rewari, appointed Devender Singh son of Ram Singh-respondent No.4, on the indicated post of Lambardar, by virtue of order dated 30.09.2005(Annexure P-1). 3. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-1), petitioner-Narender Singh filed the appeal, which was accepted and the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, appointed him(petitioner) as Lambardar, by way of order dated 24.10.2007(Annexure P-2). Civil Writ Petition No.13748 of 2009 2 4. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-2), respondent No.4 filed the revision petition, which was accepted and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, appointed him(respondent No.4) as Lambardar, by means of order dated 30.03.2009(Annexure P-3), the operative part of which is as under:- “After hearing both the counsel and perusal of record on the file, it reveals that the respondent being a Government employee who can be transferred any where in the State of Haryana will not be able to perform his duties of Lambardar as the petitioner can who is always available in the village. As such, I am of the considered view that this Revision Petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, I allow this revision petition and set aside the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Divn.Gurgaon and uphold the order dated 30.09.2005 of the District Collector, Rewari vide which the petitioner Sh.Devender Singh s/o Ram Singh has been appointed as Lambardar of Village Shahadat Nagar, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari.” 5. Petitioner-Narender Singh did not feel satisfied and preferred the present civil writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-3) invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be partly accepted in this regard. 7. As is evident from the record that, neither the Collector, Rewari, nor the Financial Commissioner, considered the respective pros and cons of both the candidates and just ignored the claim of the petitioner, mainly, on the ground that he is employed as Assistant Development Officer in the Agriculture Department. Here, to me, they have slipped into a deep legal error in this respect. It is now well settled principle of law that to be in the service of the Government, is not a disqualification for appointment on the post of Lambardar. 8. An identical question came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in case Sukhminder Singh Versus Financial Commissioner, 1992(2) P.L.R. 73, wherein it was ruled as under:- Civil Writ Petition No.13748 of 2009 3 “We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel. To be in the service of the Government cannot be a disqualification for appointment as Lambardar, especially when the post of a Lambardar, is itself a civil post and dismissal or removal therefrom also attracts the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as the same are attracted in the case of other Government servants. Moreover, the provision for appointment of a Sarbrah Lambardar itself indicates that the actual performance of duties of the office of Lambardar can be done by the person other than the Lambardar himself, meaning thereby that if a Government servant is appointed as a Lambardar his appointment as Lambardar will not in any way interfere in the discharge of his duties as a Government servant. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner, Appeals that a Government servant is fully eligible for appointment as Lambardar and he cannot be ignored only on that account if he is otherwise eligible and suitable for that post.” 9. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis-mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, pleaded the following comparative merits of both the candidates(in para 9 of the writ petition), which have been acknowledged by the learned counsel for the respondents:- Sr.No. Petitioner Respondent No.4 Narender Singh Devender Singh 1. Education B.Sc. Matric Fail 2. Land 17 acres 5-1/2 acres 3. Experience His father was Lambardar No experience and has the experience as Sarbrah. 4. Small Savings Rs.40,000/- Rs.15,000/- 5. Age 45 years 38 years 11. Meaning thereby, the mere fact that the petitioner is serving in the Agriculture Department, ipso facto is not a cogent ground, to ignore his candidature. The Collector and the Financial Commissioner ought to have Civil Writ Petition No.13748 of 2009 4 considered the other merits and demerits of the candidates and were legally required, to indicate the valid reasons, for arriving at a correct conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties, in the right perspective. Every action of such authorities must be informed by reasons. The order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play. Every such order must be confined and structured by the rational and relevant material on record, because the valuable rights of the parties are involved. 12. Exhibiting the importance of passing speaking and reasoned order, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240 has held(para 8) as under:- “The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.Mukherjee V. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi- judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.” 13. Therefore, thus, seen from any angle, to my mind, the impugned orders cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case and it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the matter is remitted back to the Collector, for its fresh decision in this relevant connection. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the matter, the instant writ petition is accepted. The impugned orders(Annexures P-1 to P-3) are hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the Collector, for deciding the matter afresh, in view of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. Civil Writ Petition No.13748 of 2009 5 15. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Collector on 14.12.2011 for further proceedings. 16. Needless to mention here that, nothing recorded hereinabove would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the instant controversy. November 01, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No