Civil Writ Petition No.15538 of 2011 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 24, 2011 Jaspal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Anand Chhibbar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Father of respondent No.5 Sukhdev Singh was a Lambardar of village Bhilowal, District Patiala. He made an application requesting that he was not able to discharge his functions due to old age and handicap. Sukhdev Singh accordingly submitted his resignation, which was accepted. Proclamation was done in the village by Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Respondent No.5 filed an application after completion of necessary formalities. His name was recommended. Collector, Patiala, however, accepted the objection filed by the petitioner to the effect that he could not apply for the post of Lambardar due to lack of proper proclamation. This objection as raised had earlier not been considered proper by Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Civil Writ Petition No.15538 of 2011 : 2 : On the direction of the Collector, a fresh proclamation was made in the village. Respondent No.5 Harbhajan Singh filed an application. His name was recommended by Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Assistant Collector Ist Grade recommended the name of petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar. By referring to the comparative merit, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, in any case, is better placed for appointment to the post of Lambardar, being young and having more land holding. Collector, however, after considering the relevant merits has appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, which was dismissed by the Commissioner. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present writ petition to impugn the orders passed by the Collector and of the Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold submission before me. He would first submit that the recommendation made by Assistant Collector Ist Grade was not given due consideration and weightage and was wrongly ignored. The counsel contends that the petitioner certainly has a better merit and the Collector was not justified in appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar. Counsel would submit that it was because of the design by the father of the petitioner that he resigned to ensure appointment of his son as Lambardar. Hereditary claim, which has been taken into consideration to tilt the balance in favour of the respondent, would not be proper, says the counsel. Counsel further contents that the petitioner is much more popular as 31 persons had given affidavits in his favour in addition to a large number of persons having signed to plead that petitioner be appointed being more suitable. Civil Writ Petition No.15538 of 2011 : 3 : The Collector, in my view, has taken into consideration all these factors and has given valid reasons to appoint respondent No.5 as Lambardar. He has rightly observed that though the hereditary claim may not be a reason enough to appoint a particular person, but still this was a factum which could be taken into consideration if other merits of the candidates were equal or almost matching. The reasoning given by the Collector that the petitioner was also having some additional responsibility being Director of the Co-operative Societies and that the concentration of the responsibility, on one hand, may not be good, is a valid and relevant consideration, which weighed with the Collector. There is no arbitrariness or lack of consideration of material, which would call for interference in the choice exercised by the Collector. As per the well settled position of law, choice of the Collector is required to be preferred, unless the same suffers from any arbitrary consideration or for want of consideration of any relevant material, which ought to have been taken into consideration. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The same is accordingly dismissed. August 24, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE