IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12074 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 21, 2011 Dalel Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner –Cum- Secretary, Revenue, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Lambardar for village Hansu Majra, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, was to be appointed. Respondent No.4, Karnail Singh, was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, Kaithal, vide order dated 15.7.2008 (Annexure P-1). 2. Petitioner carried an appeal. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. CWP No.12074 of 2009 [2] accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner vide Order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.4 carried a revision that has been allowed by the Financial Commissioner, vide Order dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure P-4). 3. By way of this petition, petitioner challenges order dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner and prays for upholding Order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner. 4. While appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar for the village, Collector in Order Annexure P-1 has noted that respondent is young; 7th class pass; has recommendations of Lambardar, Sarpanch, Tehsildar; and his antecedents are good. Petitioner has been found to be 62 years of age; B.A., LLB; and experienced. Both the candidates have sufficient agricultural land and both of them have been found to have served the society. 5. Petitioner was appointed, earlier, as Lambardar in the year 2000. Petitioner, however, in 2004 submitted his resignation on account of personal house-hold works as he could not find much time to serve as Lambardar. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that father of the petitioner was CWP No.12074 of 2009 [3] suffering from Cancer, and therefore, had to be given treatment in Patiala for which purpose, the petitioner had to stay by the side of his father. Since he could not do justice to his job as Lambardar, he submitted his resignation. Father of the petitioner subsequently died in the year 2004 itself. This fact has been stated in Para 2 of the petition, however, is disputed by learned counsel for the private respondent. 7. Be that as it may, petitioner assigned a reason for resignation viz. unavailability in the village. 8. The Commissioner, set aside the order (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector on the ground that petitioner has served as Sarpanch for one term in the village and was Lambardar for 4 years in the same village, therefore, the petitioner has good reputation and popularity in the village and experience for serving as Lambardar. 9. I have also taken note of the fact that a criminal complaint had been filed against the petitioner which however, culminated in judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court. 10. The Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order (Annexure P-4) has upheld the order passed by Collector on the ground that CWP No.12074 of 2009 [4] there was a criminal case against the petitioner that had not been finalised. The order of Commissioner setting aside the appointment of private respondent has been held to be not based on sound reasons and therefore, the order has been reversed. 11. I have considered the comparative merit of the candidates. 12. Higher education has to be given importance in view of the change in circumstances. Even at Tehsildar level as the revenue record is being computerised. Even the rules require giving preference to a middle class pass candidate. Admittedly, respondent No.4 is only 7th class pass. 13. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, petitioner is B.A., LLB; has served as Sarpanch; and was appointed as Lambardar in the year 2000. The fair conduct of the petitioner is reflected from the fact that he submitted his resignation in the year 2004 on account of his family compulsions as he had to remain out of the village and could not serve the residents of the estate. 14. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I find the order passed by the Commissioner viz. Annexure P-3, to CWP No.12074 of 2009 [5] be based on relevant material and in accordance with law, and also in tune with the rules. 15. The petition is accordingly allowed. Order dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner is hereby quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 21, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?