IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1536 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 26.08.2011 Satpal …..Appellant versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Manish Soni, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. Nos.4196 and 4197 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in these applications, which are accompanied by affidavits, the same are allowed, 4 days delay in filing and 116 days delay in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.1536 of 2011 This appeal has been filed against an order dated 7.2.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.6602 of 2009, filed by the appellant. Appointment to the post of a Lambardar is in issue in this case. On accrual of a vacancy, applications were invited. Report was sought from the lower revenue staff. Before the Collector, appellant and respondent No.4 were the contesting candidates. The Collector appointed the appellant as a Lambardar in the village. Respondent No.4 went in appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated 29.7.2008, by observing as under:- LPA No.1536 of 2011 “5. I have heard the arguments of the ld. Counsels for both the parties and have also perused the record. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I have arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is 45 years of age and he is matriculate and he also owns 25 kanals of land. Apart from above, he has deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- under small savings scheme. Whereas respondent is 53 years of age and he is matric fail and he owns 22 kanals of land and he has deposited Rs.55,000/- under small savings scheme. As per the Halqa Patwari report dated 11.6.2007, respondent Satpal has 12 kanals 1 marla land in concerned village Mohir and 10 kanals 18 marlas land in village Machhrauli. In this way, he has total 22 kanals 19 marlas land. As per the rules for the purpose of appointment of a person, his holding only in the concerned village is to be considered. In this way, respondent has 12 kanals 1 marla land in village Mohri. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that appellant is more meritorious in comparison to respondent in all respects. Collector has appointed the respondent as Lambardar while over looking the merits of the appellant. In my opinion, the order passed by the Collector is not justifiable. In these circumstances, the order under appeal is set aside and the appeal of the appellant is accepted and appellant Dharampal son of Lajja Ram is ordered to be appointed as Lambardar of village Mohri, sub tehsil Bilaspur in place of deceased Lambardar. Accordingly, Sanand Lambardari be issued in favour of the appellant by Collector, Yamuna Nagar.” 2 LPA No.1536 of 2011 It was noted, as a matter of fact, that on merits, respondent No.4 is a better candidate and further that a criminal case is pending against the appellant. The appellant went in revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 10.2.2009. Appellant came in writ petition, which was also dismissed vide the order impugned in this appeal. The learned Single Judge has noted that respondent No.4 owns more land, younger in age and is more educated as compared to the appellant. It was also noted that there is no disability against respondent No.4, whereas to the contrary the appellant has been arrayed as an accused in a criminal case. By taking note of above said facts, writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Ordinarily, unless it is perverse on facts and in law, Collector’s choice is not to be reversed, however, in the present case on both the counts, an order passed by the Collector was not justified. In view of facts stated above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 26.08.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3