CWP No.18410 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18410 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.1.2010 Swaran Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner,Appeals-I, Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the orders dated 23.11.2004, 10.8.2006 and 27.3.2008, passed by the District Collector, Ferozepur, Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab. The Collector, Ferozepur, invited applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar of Village Markhai, Tehsil Zira, Distt. Ferozepur. The contest was narrowed down to Swaran Singh petitioner, Jeon Singh respondent no.4 and Baldev Singh, respondent no.5. The Collector, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar, vide order dated 8.8.2001. Jeon Singh, respondent no.4 filed an appeal. Vide order dated 19.9.2002, the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, accepted the appeal and remitted the matter to the Collector, to decide the dispute afresh. The CWP No.18410 of 2009 2 Collector reconsidered the respective merits of the parties and directed the appointment of Baldev Singh, respondent no.5, as Lambardar. The candidature of Jeon Singh was rejected, as he was found to have been convicted in a criminal case, whereas Swaran Singh was held to be less meritorious. The petitioner and Jeon Singh filed separate appeals. The Commissioner accepted the appeals and once again remanded the matter to the Collector to decide the matter afresh. The Commissioner held that as Baldev Singh had not challenged the original order dated 8.8.2001, passed by the Collector, his candidature could not have been reconsidered, by the Collector. The Commissioner also held that as the deceased Lambardar was the grandfather of the petitioner, he was entitled to a preferential hereditary claim. The Collector reconsidered the matter and once again appointed Baldev Singh. The petitioner and Jeon Singh,respondent no.4 filed two separate appeals, which were dismissed by the Commissioner on 10.8.2006. Respondent no.4, thereafter, filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh, which was dismissed on 27.3.2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as held by the Commissioner in his order dated 29.7.2004, Baldev Singh did not challenge the original order passed by the Collector appointing the petitioner, his case could not be reconsidered by the Collector after remand. It is further argued that the Collector should have accorded precedence to the hereditary claim of the petitioner, while appointing Baldev Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. CWP No.18410 of 2009 3 The Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner,(Appeals-I) have held that Baldev Singh is the most suitable candidate. As a general rule, the choice of the Collector is final till such time, as it is shown to be palpably perverse, arbitrary or contrary to law. Reference in this regard may be made to a Division Bench judgement of this court reported as Khushal Singh and others V. Gurdip Singh and others, 1987 PLJ 369 and Ujagar Singh Vs.State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28. The argument that as the Commissioner, in his earlier order dated 29.7.2004 had set aside the appointment of Baldev Singh by holding that as he had not challenged the original order appointing the petitioner, his candidature could not be reconsidered, cannot be accepted. The order passed by the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner with a direction to decide the entire matter afresh after considering the merits of all the candidates and though an observation was made that Baldev Singh did not file an appeal, the Collector was directed to decide the entire dispute afresh. The argument that the hereditary claim of the petitioner should have been accorded precedence cannot be accepted. The provision of Rule 17 that provides precedence to hereditary claims has held to be ultra vires by a Division Bench of this court in a judgement reported as Karnail Singh V. The State of Haryana and others, 1973 PLJ 676. A relevant extract of the aforementioned judgement reads as follows :- Practice apart, rule 17(ii) may seem to attach too much importance to the claim of heredity and the selection of the successor is sought to be confined to a male lineal descendant or the nearest collateral. Rule 17(ii) may seem to make discrimination or distinction on the ground CWP No.18410 of 2009 4 of heredity or family connections. This rule may, therefore, appear to be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14,15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reference could in this connection be made to the Supreme Court rulings in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 564 and The State of Assam and others V. Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 884. Shri Naubat Singh has cited before us a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Rishikesavan Naidu V. S. Srinivasa Reddiar, AIR 1965 Madras 178, but the facts in that case were altogether different. The person who had been selected to the hereditary office in that case had no other rival in the field. He would have been selected unopposed independently of his family connections with the deceased. It was under these circumstances that it was held that heredity was no disqualification being selected to a particular post or appointment. 4. For reasons given above, we declare sub-rule (ii) of Land Revenue Rule 17 to be ultra vires and unconstitutional. The appointments under this sub-rule of respondent no.4 in Civil Writ No.1048 of 1967, respondent No.3 in Civil Writ No.696 of 1970 and respondent no.4 in Civil Writ No.666 of 1970 is quashed and the State Government is directed to make fresh CWP No.18410 of 2009 5 appointments after considering the claims of all the contesting candidates. The three writ petitions are allowed but we make no order as to costs.” In view of what has been stated herein above, the present petition is dismissed. 7.1.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE