LPA No.1527 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1527 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 16, 2011 Dharam Pal ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr.A.K. Singh Goyat, Advocate, for the appellant. Paramjeet Singh, J. C.M. No.6102 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Letters Patent Appeal is restored to its original number. L.P.A. No. 1527 of 2011 Present Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against order dated 01.06.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby order dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, has been upheld. The brief facts of the case are that due to death of Zile Singh, Lambardar, the post of Lambardar at Village Rajli, Tehsil and District Hisar had fallen vacant. For filling up the vacant post, proceedings were initiated; Naib Tehsildar, LPA No.1527 of 2011 2 Barwala, made proclamation in the village. In pursuance to that, five candidates, namely, Sube Singh, Suraj Mal, Bachna, Dharam Pal and Nam Niwas submitted their applications. When the matter was under consideration before the Naib Tehsildar, two persons, namely, Ram Niwas and Bachana withdrew their applications on 13.10.2006, as a result of which, three candidates remained in the contest. The Local Police submitted character verification report and reported that against Dharam Pal (appellant), an F.I.R. No. 83 dated 27.02.2006, under Sections 379/430 IPC has been registered and is pending in the competent Court. Antecedents of the other candidates were found satisfactory. After completing the formalities, the Naib Tehsildar recommended the name of Sube Singh son of Zile Singh for appointment as Lambardar of the Village Rajli. The case was sent to the Tehsildar. Before Tehsildar, Suraj Mal did not contest and only two candidates remained in the contest i.e. Sube Singh and the appellant. Tehsildar recommended the name of Sube Singh. However, the Sub Divisional Officer did not agree with the recommendation of the Tehsildar and the Naib Tehsildar and in place of the name of Sube Singh, recommeded the name of the appellant. Ultimately, the matter reached before the Collector for consideration. The Collector vide order dated 28.02.2007 (Annexure P/1) appointed Sube Singh LPA No.1527 of 2011 3 (respondent No.5) as Lambardar. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure P/2) set aside the order of the Collector and gave a direction to initiate fresh proceedings to fill the post of Lambardar. Respondent No.5 (Sube Singh) filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner and vide order dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure P/3), the Financial Commissioner after hearing the parties, set aside the order of the Commisioner and after considering the comparative merit of the appellant and respondent No.5, upheld the order of the Collector. Thereafter, the appellant had filed C.W.P. No. 10056 of 2011 before this Court and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order, as well as, orders of the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commisioner. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the candidature of the appellant has been rejected only on the ground that FIR was registered and criminal case is pending against him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been acquitted in the said FIR vide order dated 02.07.2008 (Annexure P/4), as such, pendency of the criminal proceedings against the appellant cannot be taken as ground LPA No.1527 of 2011 4 for rejection of his name for the post of Lambardar. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the finding has been recorded by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner, after appreciating the evidence on record, that Sube Singh is younger in age and has 96 kanals 8 marlas of land; whereas, the appellant has only 60 kanals 8 marlas of land. It has also been considered by the authorities that Tehsildar and the Naib Tehsildar have made recommendations in favour of Sube Singh and the Naib Tehsildar had checked the work of respondent No.5 and found satisfactory. It has also been held that Sube Singh has a good image in the village. It has also been held that Sube Singh is 5th pass and is capable of perfoming the duties. No doubt, the appellant is a B.A., but the Collector had found that the qualification of 5th is sufficient. The learned Collector had come to the conclusion that at that point of time, an FIR under Section 379/430 IPC was registered against the appellant at Police Station Barwala with regard to theft of canal water and trial is pending in the competent Court. It has also been categorically held that Sube Singh is the son of previous Lambardar and has been performing the duties satisfactory for the past one year. His candidature has been recommended by the Sarpanch and Panches. Keeping in view all the facts, finding has been recorded in favour of Sube LPA No.1527 of 2011 5 Singh (respondent No.5) by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has upheld the finding of both the authorities. It is a settled principle of law that choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit. Dismissed. (PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE December 16, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE