IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.16530 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 09, 2011 RAVI KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. Sumeet Sheokand, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. SS Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. PS Sullar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Order dated 8.7.2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Collector, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar for Village Sasauli, Tehsil Jagaddhari District Yamunanagar, Haryana, has been set aside by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, vide order dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure P- 5). The Financial Commissioner has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner vide order dated 2.3.2010 (Annexure P-6). 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Civil Writ Petition No.16530 of 2010 2 the comparative merit is required to be seen. The petitioner is more meritorious as compared to respondent No. 3. It has also been contended that the petitioner has given an undertaking that he would shift to the village, in case he is appointed as Lambardar. 3 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 The issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been dealt with by the Commissioner in para-5 of order (Annexure P-5). It has been shown that the petitioner is working in Baddi (Himachal Pradesh). Wife of the petitioner is working as Guest Lecturer in Government College, Panchkula. The petitioner is residing with his family in Chandigarh. 5 So as to discharge the functions of Lambardar as given out in Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, a person is required to be a resident of the village constantly. I find that the Commissioner has considered the suitability of the petitioner in the right perspective of facts and circumstances of the case in allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 and appointing respondent No. 3 as Lambardar. The facts and circumstances indicate that the petitioner is working in Baddi, his wife is working in Panchkula and the petitioner is residing in Chandigarh. It Civil Writ Petition No.16530 of 2010 3 is highly doubtful that the petitioner would be available on day to day basis in the village to serve as Lambardar. 6 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed as Lambardar, is required to be considered in the context of suitability of the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar. The petitioner might be eligible to be appointed as Lambardar, however, considering his residence to be outside the estate and the village, he is not suitable. 7 I trace no illegality or perversity in order (Annexure P-5), passed by the Commissioner, and order (Annexure P-6), passed by the Financial Commissioner. 8 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. March 09, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?