IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17292 of 2009 Date of decision : 12.11.2009 Mani Ram ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner was a candidate for consideration for appointment as Lambardar of village Jhabua, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari. The vacancy for the said office of Lambardar arose on account of the death of Sh. Sheo Sahai, the previous Lambardar. A proclamation was made in village Jhabua and applications were invited from persons who may be interested for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. The petitioner along with Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) and Ved Parkash (respondent No.5) applied for the office of Lambardar. The District Revenue Officer exercising the powers of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari on 29.6.2004 (Annexure P1) CWP No.17292 of 2009 [2] recommended Ved Parkash (respondent No.5) for appointment as Lambardar. The matter was considered by the District Collector, Rewari who vide order dated 10.5.2005 (Annexure P2) found Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) to be suitable for appointment. The petitioner admittedly did not appear before the District Collector, Rewari (respondent No.3) at the time of consideration for appointment as Lambardar. Ved Parkash (respondent No.5) aggrieved against the order dated 10.5.2005 (Annexure P2) passed by the District Collector, Rewari (respondent No.3) filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2). The petitioner Mani Ram was respondent No.2 in the said appeal. He, however, did not file any appeal against the order dated 10.5.2005 (Annexure P2) passed by the District Collector, Rewari (respondent No.3). In any case, the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) vide order dated 24.8.2006 (Annexure P3) dismissed the appeal of Ved Parkash (respondent No.5). It was held that Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) was the most suitable person for appointment as Lambardar. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 24.8.2006 (Annexure P3) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) filed a revision petition (Annexure P4) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure P5). Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. CWP No.17292 of 2009 [3] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the most suitable candidate and he should have been appointed as Lambardar. It is submitted that the petitioner is 9 th class pass whereas respondent No.4 who has been appointed as Lambardar, is 5 th standard pass. Therefore, it is contended that the appointment of Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) as Lambardar is in contravention of Clause (i) of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable in Haryana) (“Rules” – for short). It is further contended that the petitioner is 47 years of age whereas Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) is 68 years of age. Therefore, also the petitioner is liable to be appointed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and Others, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 757 (SC) in support of the said contention. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It may be noticed that the matter of appointment of Lambardar is an administrative act and prerogative of the District Collector. As such, his selection is not to be lightly undone until and unless there is some gross irregularity perversity or patent error in the order appointing a Lambardar. In Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and Others (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held that it is well settled that the Court is ordinarily concerned with the decision making process and not the merit of the decision. The District CWP No.17292 of 2009 [4] Collector (respondent No.3) on comparative merit of the candidates for consideration for appointment as Lambardar, appointed Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) as Lambardar. The petitioner admittedly did not appear before the District Collector (respondent No.4) so as to pursue his case. The District Collector noticed that Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) knows reading and writing Hindi. Besides, he is the son of late Lambardar Sh. Sheo Sahai. He had been a co-worker with the ex-Lambardar for seven years and had experience of Lambardari work. He resided in the village itself and possessed 11 acres of agricultural land. He was 64 years of age but kept very good health. It was found that he enjoyed good reputation in the village. Besides, he was acquainted with the National Policies and contributed more under the Small Saving Schemes. The case of Ved Parkash (respondent No.5) did not find favour with the District Collector. The petitioner did not assail the order dated 10.5.2005 (Annexure P2) before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) although he was respondent No.2 in the said appeal. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) also found Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) to be more suitable. The petitioner then filed a revision petition (Annexure P4) before the learned Financial Commissioner which has been dismissed. In the revision petition (Annexure P4) it was stated by the petitioner that he had studied upto matriculation standard. Besides, he was a retired Army personnel. Now, the CWP No.17292 of 2009 [5] stand is somewhat different and it is the case of the petitioner that he had studied upto 9 th class. Besides, nothing has been placed on record or even contended during the course of hearing that he is a retired Army personnel. Be that as it may. The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled for consideration for appointment as Lambardar in view of Clause (i) to Rule 15 of the Rules. The provisions of the said rule envisages that in all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had amongst other matters to the factors as enumerated therein. Clause (i) envisages that in all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had to the fact that he should be literate preferably middle pass. Therefore, the requirement of the Rule that the candidate should be literate for which regard is to be had to. In any case, Clause (a) of the said Rule 15 also provides that regard shall be had to the hereditary claims of the candidate. Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) has hereditary claim as he is the son of the deceased Lambardar Sh. Sheo Sahai. Besides, he is 5 th standard pass and is therefore literate and it has been observed that he can read and write Hindi. As regard the contention regarding age that the petitioner was 47 years old whereas Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) was 64 years of age which was considered at the time of consideration for appointment as Lambardar in the order of Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon passed on 24.8.2006 (Annexure P3). A perusal of the Rule 15 of the Rules provides for regard CWP No.17292 of 2009 [6] being made in matters relating to first appointments of headman, there is no condition of age being provided. The same is based by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and Others (supra) . A perusal of the said judgment shows that it has been mentioned therein that keeping in view the decisions in regard to the appointment of Lambardar in the State of Punjab that age of a candidate is a relevant factor. A reference was made to the case of Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v. Ghulam Haidar and another, 1940 (XIX) Lahore Law Times 25. The said judgment is a judgment of the learned Financial Commissioner in which it has been observed that it is certainly not wise, save in very exceptional circumstances, to appoint for the first time an ‘inamkhor’ or ‘zaildar’ whose age is 60 or more. From the case of Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and Others (supra) and the decision of the learned Financial Commissioner in the case of Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v. Ghulam Haidar and another (supra) it only provides that age of a candidate is a relevant factor though not the sole factor. The District Collector having considered the question of regarding age of Kanshi Ram (respondent No.4) and having found that he was 64 years of age but kept good health, besides, he was quite fit and agile, would not warrant interference of this Court. It is to be kept in view that the District Collector has the advantage of physically seeing the candidates and observing their demeanour. Therefore, the choice of the CWP No.17292 of 2009 [7] District Collector in the appointment of Lambardar is not liable to be interfered with specially when the same is not shown to be in any manner perverse. It is well-known that this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction is concerned with the decision making process and is not to sit over the findings and conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities in the decision making process. The jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate. Therefore, there being no infraction of the decision making process in the matter of appointment as Lambardar, the same would not warrant interference of this Court. Besides, the petitioner himself not being aggrieved against the order of the District Collector dated 10.5.2005 (Annexure P2) and not having filed an appeal against the same, besides, not being present at the time of hearing before the District Collector would not warrant any interference of this Court so as to dislodge respondent No.4 who has been appointed after due consideration. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE November 12, 2009 amit