IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1307 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 9, 2011 CHANAN RAM ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. GS Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 7.8.2007 (Annexure P-2), passed by Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, and order dated 22.7.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 2 The issue relates to appointment of Chowkidar for Village Puro Chak, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. Petitioner-Chanan Ram and respondent No.4-Joginder Pal were the main contestants. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian appointed the petitioner as Chowkidar. Respondent No.4 carried an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Civil Writ Petition No.1307 of 2010 2 Deputy Commissioner, while interfering with the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, directed appointment of respondent No.4. On the revision filed by the petitioner, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has been upheld. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order (Annexure P-1), passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not call for any interference insomuch as the said authority is the appointing authority. The merit of the petitioner and respondent No.4 is comparable. 4 Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that the said respondent has better merit and, therefore, the facts could not have been ignored by the appellate and revisional authorities. 5 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6 The comparative merit indicates that while the petitioner is 7th class pass and is 46 years of age, respondent No.4 is 9th class pass and 35 years of age. Thus, in terms of educational qualification and age, respondent No.4 made a better candidate. The Sub Divisional Magistrate ignored the claim of respondent No.4 on the ground that the Panchayat recommended respondent No.4 for appointment as Chowkidar. In such circumstances, it has been concluded that respondent No.4 indulges in political activities. 7 In my considered opinion, the Deputy Commissioner has, for the right reasons, taken cognizance of this illegal observation made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in order Annexure P-1. The recommendation by the Gram Panchayat does not necessarily mean that respondent No.4 Civil Writ Petition No.1307 of 2010 3 indulged in politics, rather, it means that the said person is popular and can discharge the duties of Chowkidar better. 8 Be that as it may, considering the comparative merit of the petitioner and respondent No.4, no interference in writ jurisdiction is called for in the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. 9 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 9, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?