C.W.P. No. 7471 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No. 7471 of 2006 Date of decision:.28-1-2008 Dilbagh Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Jalandhar and others .....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Garewal Hon'ble Ms. Justice Daya Chaudhary Present: Mr. S.S.Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for respondent No.5 K.S.GAREWAL, J. In this petition the contestants are Dilbagh Singh petitioner and Angrej Singh, respondent No.5 who are contesting for the office of Chowkidar of Marri Nau Abad, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. The office of Chowkidar had fallen vacant when Sulakhan Singh died. Earlier to Sulakhan Singh the chowkidar had been the petitioner's father Shinda Singh. Names were sought from the village for the appointment to fill the post of chowkidar. The panchayat and some of the Lambardars recommended the petitioner but one Lambardar recommended Angrej Singh respondent No.5. Tehsildar, Patti, allegedly ignored all rules and appointed Angrej Singh as chowkidar. The petitioner went in appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Patti who accepted the appeal and appointed him as chowkidar on May 25, 2000. It was then Angrej Singh's turn to appeal before the Collector, who upheld the appointment of the petitioner and dismissed his appeal. Angrej Singh went in further appeal before the Commissioner who allowed the appeal and appointed him chowkidar on March 17, 2006. C.W.P. No. 7471 of 2006 2 The order of the Commissioner has been challenged in this petition on the ground that nomination to the post is to be made in accordance with Rule 6 of the Punjab Chowkidari Rules, 1969. The opinion of the village headman is to prevail. When there are more than one headman then opinion of the majority shall prevail. When the watchman is appointed for a beat comprising of more than one village the opinion of the majority of headmen in such a beat shall prevail. The learned Commissioner had totally relied upon the recommendation of the Tehsildar who had appointed Angrej Singh as chowkidar. The appointment was on the basis of the report of the Circle Revenue Officer. According to the Commissioner, the order of the Tehsildar should not have been upset. Moreover Angrej Singh was literate and had studied upto class 5 whereas Dilbagh Singh was totally illiterate. Angrej Singh's claim had also been supported by one Lambardar. Furthermore, he was member of the Scheduled Caste community. We have considered the orders passed by the Revenue Courts and find that the order of the Learned Commissioner does not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal error. The Commissioner had given most weightage to the Tehsildar's order which was the right thing to do. We find no ground to interfere in this petition and dismiss the same. ( K.S.GAREWAL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE January 28, 2008 RSK