Civil Writ Petition No.20665 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20665 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.12.2011 Rajinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Dr.Surya Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of death of Shiv Ram, the post of Lambardar had fallen vacant in the Village Jhanjhari, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal. 2. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade-cum-Tehsildar Nilokheri, without effecting the proclamation, recommended the name of petitioner-Rajinder Singh, for the indicated post of Lambardar, vide order dated 15.06.2007 and referred the matter to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Thereafter, Digvijay Singh son of Hukam Singh (respondent No.5), Ajay Kumar son of Raj Kumar, Ram Kumar & Balbir Singh sons of Ram Kishan and Surender Kumar son of Pala Ram, residents of the village, moved an application along with the affidavits that no proclamation was got effected in the village. Therefore, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade came to the conclusion that no proclamation was effected in the village and again directed the Tehsildar Nilokheri, to conduct the fresh Munadi/proclamation in the Civil Writ Petition No.20665 of 2011 2 village and Halqa Patwari was directed to obtain the signatures of the respectable persons, Sarpanch and Lambardar etc. of the village in token of the proclamation, by way of impugned order dated 31.07.2007(Annexure P-2). 3. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-2) of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed by the Collector, Karnal, by virtue of impugned order dated 29.10.2007(Annexure P-3). 4. Dis-satisfied with the order(Annexure P-3), the petitioner filed the revision petition, which was accepted in limine and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, to send his recommendation, whatever he deems proper to the Collector for taking appropriate decision in the matter, through the medium of order dated 28.12.2007(Annexure P-4). 5. Again, aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-4), Digvijay Singh (respondent No.5) filed the revision petition, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, by means of order dated 22.06.2009(Annexure P-5). 6. In the wake of Civil Writ Petition bearing No.12094 of 2009 filed by Digvijay Singh(respondent No.5), the matter was again remitted back to the Commissioner, Haryana, to decide the same afresh, after hearing both the parties by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2009(Annexure P-6). In pursuance thereof, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, decided the matter and directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, to comply with the directions, as contained in the previous order dated 28.12.2007, by way of order dated 06.05.2010(Annexure P-7). 7. Again, dis-satisfied with the order(Annexure P-7), Digvijay Singh (respondent No.5) filed the revision petition, which was accepted. The order dated 06.05.2010(Annexure P-7) of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division was set aside and the order dated 31.07.2007(Annexure P-2) of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and dated 29.10.2007(Annexure P-3) of the Collector, were restored by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, by virtue of impugned order dated 31.01.2011 Civil Writ Petition No.20665 of 2011 3 (Annexure P-8). 8. Petitioner-Rajinder Singh still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-8), invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. 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 instant writ petition in this context. 10. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the proclamation was duly conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Nilokheri, but the Financial Commissioner committed a legal mistake, in again ordering the proclamation in the village, so, the impugned orders(Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-8) are illegal, is neither tenable nor the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Deepak Agro Foods Versus State of Rajasthan and others, (2008)7 Supreme Court Cases 748, rendered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, are nearer, nor applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. As is evident from the record that, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has noticed that no valid proclamation was conducted in the village, as the so- called proclamation proceedings were not signed by any responsible persons of the village, such as Lambardar, Sarpanch or Panch. The Collector has also recorded a finding of fact that no proper proclamation for inviting the applications was conduced in the village. Once, the Collector has upheld the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and came to a definite conclusion that no proper proclamation for inviting the applications had been conducted in the village, then there was no occasion for the Commissioner, to set aside such orders. Therefore, to me, the Commissioner has slipped into a deep legal error in this respect, which was rightly corrected by the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 31.01.2011 (Annexure P-8), the operative part of which is, as under:- “What comes out from the repeated rounds of litigation in this case that the respondent's interest would be vest served only if the choice of Lambardar Civil Writ Petition No.20665 of 2011 4 is restricted to his candidature which can be possible only if no fresh proclamation is held in the village. In view of facts mentioned above, I am of the considered view that conduct of a fresh Munadi in the village for seeking fresh applications for the post of Lambardar is fully justified. It has also been amply explained that established in the paragraphs hereinbefore that the revenue officers in the hierarchy are not merely post offices and are cost with a responsibility to correct any aberrations in the process at their own level without making a reference to the Collector so long as such corrective action is bona-fide. Therefore, in the given circumstances, the revision petition is accepted, the order dated 06.05.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak is set aside and the order of A.C.Ist Grade, Karnal dated 31.07.2007 and that of Collector, Karnal dated 29.10.2007 are restored.” 12. In this manner, the Financial Commissioner has rightly non-suited him and 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 P-2, P-3 and P-8), are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court. Above all, since the petitioner would be at liberty, to reiterate his claim on merits after due proclamation, so, no material prejudice is going to be caused to him in this regard. 13. Meaning thereby, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the Collector, Karnal, and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, have recorded the cogent grounds and rightly negatived the claim of the petitioner in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No.20665 of 2011 5 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. December 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No. Civil Writ Petition No.20665 of 2011 6 Civil Writ Petition No.20665 of 2011 7 Civil Writ Petition No.20665 of 2011 8