IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 19.11.2010 Ved Parkash …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. Nos.4752 of 2010 In view of reasons given in application, it is allowed and delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.1572 of 2010 This appeal has been filed to lay challenge to a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 26.8.2010, dismissing CWP No.13718 of 2010 filed by the petitioner, challenging appointment of respondent No.4 as a Lamberdar of village Haripur Baran, tehsil Thanesar, district Kurukshetra. Record reveals that to fill up a vacancy of Lamberdar in the aforesaid village, applications were invited and after getting recommendation from the lower revenue staff, the Collector appointed Karnail Singh as Lamberdar of the village. Matter went to the LPA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) Commissioner in appeal, who set aside the order passed by the Collector and appointed respondent No.4 against the post of Lamberdar. Claim of the appellant was negatived by observing that respondent No.4 was more meritorious. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “I heard the argument of the appellant as well as peruse the written argument and record of the case. After peruse the record as well as heard argument of the parties, I came to the conclusion that Collector appointed the respondent for the post of Lambardar because he always remain in the village and appellant Ved Parkash and Balinder Pal were ignored on the ground that their availability is not possible whereas in case for appointment of Lambardar, Collector should have been considered the merits and demerits and then passed appropriate order and only one point with regard to availability of the candidate in the village appointment cannot be given. As per the fact came on the record appellant Balinder Pal is a suitable candidate from all angles. Appellant Balinder Pal is 33 years old and is highly educated from all the candidates. And he gave lot of amount under small saving scheme and gave many cases for family planning and took lot of participation in the work. In addition to this Balinder Pal donated blood twice. Tehsildar recommended the name of Balinder Pal for the post of Lamberdar whereas respondent was not recommended any of the lower revenue officer. As per the Bank pass book, Life Insurance policy and other education certificate, it is clear that appellant Balinder Pal is resident of village Haripur (Baram). Thus, from the above discussion 2 LPA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) Balinder Pal is suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar and ld. Collector committed illegality not appointed candidate Balinder Pal for the post of Lambardar. In my opinion the appealable order passed by ld. Collector is not legal. Thus, in this situation the order passed by ld. Collector set aside and appeal preferred by the appellant Balinder Pal is accepted and he appointed as a Lambardar of the village Haripur (Bram) on the place of Arjun Singh (deceased) Lambardar.” Appellant and Karnail Singh went in revision. The Financial Commissioner found it, as a matter of fact, that respondent No.4 was better placed as compared to the appellant and Karnail Singh and accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.3.2010. At that stage, appellant filed CWP No.13718 of 2010, which was dismissed vide the impugned order, by observing as under:- “I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and express my inability to accede to the above argument. The petitioner has failed to refer to any rule, regulation or instruction issued by the Financial Commissioner, that a post of Lambardar has to be reserved for backward class candidates. Even if this were true and there was any such reservation, a backward class candidate, cannot be prevented from participating in selection for the post of a general category Lambardar. No merit. Dismissed.” We are of the opinion that the order passed is perfectly justified. Balinder Pal (respondent No.4) is better qualified as compared to 3 LPA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) both the appellant Ved Parkash and Karnail Singh (respondent No.5). He is LL.B. and is always available to the villagers. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 19.11.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4