C.W.P.No.21999 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.21999 of 2011 Date of Decision:-28.11.2011 Subash ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having completed all the codal formalities as contemplated under the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the relevant Rules”) and compared the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the Collector appointed Narender Kumar son of Fate Singh (respondent No.5) as Lambardar (SC) of village Tajpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, by virtue of impugned order dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P1). 2. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P1), petitioner Subash son of Ram Kishan filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division (respondent No.3), by way of impugned order dated 21.1.2011 (Annexure P2). Sequally, the revision petition filed by him was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.2), by means of impugned order dated 14.7.2011 (Annexure P3). 3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner C.W.P.No.21999 of 2011 -2- was more meritorious than respondent No.5, so, the authorities below committed a legal mistake to appoint him (respondent No.5) on the indicated post of Lambardar, sans merit. 6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar. The appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector, being In-charge of the Administration. He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates. Therefore, it would always be in the interest of justice & administration and it is the duty of the Collector to appoint such person in the office of Lambardar, who is otherwise eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. 7. As is evident from the record that, the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer (C) recommended the name of Narender Kumar (respondent No.5) for appointment on the post of Lambardar. He is a young man of 28 years of age and has passed 10th class. He is the grand son of deceased Lambardar and has the experience of the indicated post. He has donated the eyes after his death. The gram panchayat has passed the resolution in his (respondent No.5) favour. 8. Having considered the pros and cons of the candidature of the candidates, the Collector appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar, vide impugned order (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is (para 4) as under:- “I have heard both the candidates and I have perused the record present in the file. In view of the main point in both the candidates, are (sic. their) age, education, capacity of work and interest of co-operation in government schemes and reputation in the people of the village etc. then in all the point the candidate Narender Kumar is superior against the other candidate. Narender Kumar candidate is a young man and he has capacity of work and grand-son of the deceased Lambardar. If we compare of merits of both the candidates then Narender Kumar candidate is better. Despite that the Ilaqa Tehsildar, Sonepat and Sub Divisional Officer (C) also recommended Narender Kumar candidate for appointment as Lambardar. Therefore, in view of the above all facts, I reached at conclusion that the recommendation of the Learned Officers is good. Hence, Sh.Narender Kumar son of Fate Singh is appointed as Lambardar of Schedule Caste in place of deceased Lambardar Sh.Sunhara Singh village Tajpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. This order may be mentioned in record of concerned department and order may be implemented after expiry of limitation C.W.P.No.21999 of 2011 -3- of appeal. The file be consigned in the record room after due compliance.” 9. It is now well settled proposition of law that choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. In the instant case, the Collector has rightly weighed the respective pros and cons of the candidates and appointed Narender Kumar (respondent No.5) as Lambardar. 10. Not only that, the choice of the Collector was further upheld by the Commissioner (Annexure P2) and the Financial Commissioner, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P3). 11. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3) are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant connection. 12. Meaning thereby, the authorities below have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 14. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 28.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No