C.W.P. No.11745 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11745 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 8, 2011 Makhan Singh ...... Petitioner Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner-Makhan Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing impugned orders dated 2.11.2010 passed by District Collector and order dated 15.2.2011 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar of village Hassanpur was declined and Sadha Singh s/o Late Jeet Singh- respondent No.3 was appointed as Lambardar on the said village. Succinctly, the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that consequent upon the resignation of Smt. Sant Kaur a post of Lambardar had fallen vacant. Accordingly, a proclamation was made in the C.W.P. No.11745 of 2011 2 village on 25.8.2009 and in pursuant thereon four candidates applied for the post of Lambardar. Out of four candidates petitioner as well as respondent No.3 Sadha Singh remained in the field. Naib Tehsildar recommended the name of respondent No.3 for appointment as Lambardar of the village, but the Tehsildar on the basis of comparative merit of both the candidates found the recommendation of Naib Tehsildar to be erroneous and as such he recommended the name of the petitioner. The matter was considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Assistant Collector Grade 1, Dera Bassi, who after giving opportunities to both the candidates recommended the name of the petitioner to the District Collector for appointment as Lambardar. The District Collector after having gone through the records appointed respondent No.3 as Lambardar of the village and rejected the candidatures of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala which was dismissed vide order dated 15.2.2011, hence, the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondents No.1 and 2 erred in law in not taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.3 belongs to Akali Party and had joined the party during the last elections and as such he being a political activist cannot be appointed as Lambardar. He has further argued that respondents No.1 and 2 have wrongly ignored the recommendations of the two Revenue Officers and despite of observing that the land owned by the petitioner is sufficient to secure the land revenue of the State have appointed respondent No.3 as Lambardar of the village, which is illegal and against the law and as such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. C.W.P. No.11745 of 2011 3 Undisputedly, the comparative chart between the petitioner and respondent No.3 is as under :- Seria l No. Makhan Singh-petitioner Sadha Singh – respondent No.3 N 3 N 3M /4 1. Qualification 10+2 6th Class 2. Land 3 bighas 11 biswas 34 bighas 2 biswas 3. Name recommended Sub Divisional Magistrate Many respectable persons of the village The District Collector, on the basis of the character verification and the fact that Sadha Singh is having more land in compare to Makhan Singh-petitioner i.e. 34 bighas 2 biswas in the village and the fact that Sant Kaur-mother of Sadha Singh-respondent No.3 and her father Inder Singh also remained as Lambardar of the village and in this manner the family of respondent No.3 has been working on the post of Lambardar for a long time, found respondent No.3 suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar. The petitioner challenged his appointment before the Commissioner but his claim was also rejected In Mahavir Singh vs. Khiyali Ram and others, (2009)3 SCC 439, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 21 and 22 has observed as under :- “21. It is, therefore, not a case where the finding of the Collector can be said to be perverse. It has also not been established that the said statutory authority while taking a decision failed to take into consideration the relevant factors or based its decision on extraneous considerations or on irrelevant factors not germane therefore. 22. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan this Court held: “12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in C.W.P. No.11745 of 2011 4 one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection committed which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection, etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so-called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court sent wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.” Applying the ratio it can safely be said that ordinarily the opinion of the Collector is to be treated as final and should not be disturbed without any plausible reason. Having perused the record, I find that the C.W.P. No.11745 of 2011 5 order of the Collector is correct appointing Sadha Singh as Lambardar of the village and there is nothing on record to disturb the opinion of the Collector appointing Sadha Singh as Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any compelling ground to say order of the Collector, Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority are perverse and were passed without looking into the relevant factors or are out come of extraneous consideration. There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (Alok Singh) Judge July 8, 2011 Anand C.W.P. No.11745 of 2011 6 Applying the said ratio, I find that the order of the Collector was correct in appointing Sadha Singh as Lambardar, of the village and there is nothing on record to disturb the opinion of the Collector appointing Sadha Singh as Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any special ground on the basis of which the name of respondent No.3 should not be considered for appointment as Lambardar. Ordinarily, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not reappreciate the evidence and as such in the opinion of this Court the order of the Collector, Commissioner as well as the order of the Financial Commissioner appointing respondent No.3-Sadha Singh as Lambardar are legal and valid and there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Collector. There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.