CWP No. 5011 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5011 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: May 04, 2011 Jagbir Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate, for respondent no. 4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Lambardar/Headman for village Rasoi, Tehsil and District Sonepat was to be appointed, for which applications were invited. Vide order Annexure P-1 dated 10.04.2008 passed by Collector Sonepat, respondent no. 4-Raghubir Singh was appointed as Lambardar. The petitioner was not found suitable essentially on the ground that a criminal case had been registered against him, although he had been acquitted in the same while respondent no. 4 had a clean record. 2. The petitioner carried an appeal. The comparative merit of the two candidates has been seen by the appellate authority viz. Commissioner, Rohtak Division (Camp at Sonepat) vide order dated 06.03.2009 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner has been found to be more suitable, being more qualified, younger in age, having experience of the work of Lambardar. 3. Respondent no. 4 carried a revision before the Financial CWP No. 5011 of 2010 2 Commissioner, which has been allowed vide impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 03.12.2009. 4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision petition has been allowed, however, without considering the comparative merit of the candidates. The merit of the petitioner has been totally ignored and not even referred to in the consideration part of the order. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent has asserted that the petitioner had been convicted of a criminal offence and, therefore, as per settled law, is a controversial figure and surely not suitable to discharge functions of Lambardar as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. 6. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 7. The admitted facts are that the petitioner-Jagbir Singh is 50 years of age, B.A. pass, owns 6 kanals and 10 marlas of land, father of the petitioner was Lambardar and, therefore, he is conversant with the job of a Lambardar, has donated his eyes, possesses NCC certificate. The petitioner further has to his credit 11 family planning cases and has a deposit of ` 1 lac in small savings. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he was involved in a criminal case. The petitioner, however, was acquitted of the charge vide judgment of acquittal dated 28.04.1993 i.e. 17 years back. 8. Respondent-Raghubir Singh is 70 years of age, claims to have passed 9th class. The respondent, however, has served in ITBT. The respondent does not own land in the village Rasoi. Father of the respondent owns 11 kanals and 1 marla of land. Father of the respondent has given 9 kanals and 3 marlas of land vide a registered Release Deed in favour of the CWP No. 5011 of 2010 3 respondent in December 2007. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has 7 children. One of the sons of the respondent has to be admitted to a de-addiction centre. The respondent has 24 family planning cases to his credit and has enabled ` 5 lacs deposit in small savings. 9. Considering the comparative merit, I find that the petitioner is younger in age, more qualified and has substantial social service, including the fact that he has donated his eyes. So far as the criminal case is concerned, the petitioner was acquitted 17 years back. Be that as it may, while setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner has not considered the reasons for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. Surely, the comparative merit should have been taken into account while taking a decision that order passed by the Collector needs to be upheld or not. Only the facts and figures in relation to the private respondent have been considered. 10. Considering the above, this petition is allowed. 11. Order Annexure P-3 dated 03.12.2009 passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana is quashed. The case is relegated to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana to consider the relative merit of the candidates and thereafter take a decision in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Financial Commissioner on 26.05.2011. 04.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?