C.M. No. 4686 of 2010 and LPA No. 1546 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 4686 of 2010 and LPA No. 1546 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.11.2010 Jogi Ram ….. APPELLANT VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the appellant. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No. 4686 of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned C.M. stands disposed of. LPA No. 1546 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.09.2010 dismissing CWP No. 17766 of 2010, C.M. No. 4686 of 2010 and LPA No. 1546 of 2010 2 in which the appellant had laid challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 6 as Lambardar of Village Bhiwani Rohila, Tehsil and District Hisar. Heard counsel for the appellant. As per record, besides the appellant and respondent No. 6, some other applicants were also the candidates for the post of Lambardar of the Village. After getting report from the Field Revenue Staff and looking into the recommendation made, the Collector, Hisar vide order dated 18.03.2008 appointed respondent No. 6 as Lambardar of the Village by observing as under:- “ Sh. Jogi Ram is of 65 years of age and is F.A. pass and is owner of 23 Kanal 5 Marla land, whereas Sh. Baljit Singh is of 29 years of age, B.A. pass and is owner of 13 Kanal 1 Marla land. He is having the experience of Lambardari being the son of deceased Lambardar. He has facilitated the cases of family planning. He has not encroached upon any Govt. land. He has got deposited the defaulted amount due since the time of his father. In this manner, he is not in default of any Bank. Sh. Jogi Ram is having the charges of embezzlement against him during his tenure in the Cooperative Societies. Sh. Jogi Ram was serving as Sales Man/Clerk in the Society and while serving so he misutilized the amount of Rs. 12254.75 ps. In the year 1974, the charge was taken from him by breaking open the locks. In this manner, the conduct of Jogi Ram has remained suspicious during his service tenure. Apart from this Jogi Ram has not paid Rs. 270/- towards the House Tax for the year 2007-08. C.M. No. 4686 of 2010 and LPA No. 1546 of 2010 3 After comparing the aforesaid facts Sh. Baljit Singh son of Badan Singh is more meritorious and eligible for appointment as Lambardar in comparison to Jogi Ram. Therefore, I appoint Sh. Baljit Singh son of Badan Singh as Lambardar of General Category in place of deceased Lambardar Sh. Badan Singh of Village Bhiwani Rohila. Certificate of Lambardari be issued record be consigned.” It was noted by the Collector that the appellant is an old man whereas respondent No. 6 was very young in comparison to the appellant. Respondent No. 6 was also found more educated as compared to the appellant. Appellant went in appeal, which was accepted by the Commissioner vide order dated 25.11.2008. Candidature of respondent No. 6 was negated primarily on the ground that he had repaid a huge amount of loan to the bank etc. and on account of that, he was found unsuitable for the post of Lambardar. Respondent No. 6 went in revision, which was accepted by the Financial Commissioner, State of Haryana, vide order dated 18.08.2010. It was found, as a matter of fact, that when consideration for the post of Lambardar had started, respondent No. 6 was not under debt. The petitioner filed the writ petition to lay challenge to the order mentioned above, which was dismissed vide the impugned order. We feel that order appointing respondent No. 6 as Lambardar of the Village is perfectly justified. He is young in age and more educated as compared to the appellant. Further more, Collector's choice can be C.M. No. 4686 of 2010 and LPA No. 1546 of 2010 4 interfered with only if it is mala-fide or against the facts on record. The Commissioner has found respondent No. 6 as not qualified only on a ground that he had repaid a huge amount of loan to the bank etc. , which fact, we feel, cannot be taken against respondent No. 6 because when consideration for the post had started, the respondent No. 6 was not a defaulter. The Commissioner also did not found the appellant a suitable candidate. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE November 15, 2010 pj