Civil Writ Petition No.16192 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16192 of 2011 Date of Decision:19.10.2011 Sukhchain Singh ......Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.M.K.Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of demise of Tar Singh, the post of Harijan Lambardar of Village Jaimalwala, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga, had fallen vacant. After completion of all the formalities for the appointment of Lambardar, as envisaged under The Punjab Land Revenue Act and Rules framed thereunder(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and Relevant Rules”), ultimately, three candidates, namely, Sukhchain Singh son of Gurmail Singh(petitioner), Tarsem Singh son of Tar Singh(respondent No.3) and Balwinder Singh son of Malkit Singh(respondent No.4) applied and lodged their respective claims for the post in question. 2. After considering the merits and demerits of the candidates, the Collector found Tarsem Singh(respondent No.3) more suitable candidate and appointed him on the indicated post of Lambardar of the village, by virtue of impugned order dated 06.10.2010(Annexure P-1). 3. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-1), petitioner-Sukhchain Singh Civil Writ Petition No.16192 of 2011 2 filed the appeal(Annexure P-2), which was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, by way of impugned order dated 31.05.2011(Annexure P-3). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-3) and preferred the present civil writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that although, the petitioner is more meritorious and suitable candidate, but the Collector committed a mistake in appointing Tarsem Singh(respondent No.3) as Lambardar of the village and since, the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, further erred in accepting the choice of the Collector, so the impugned orders are illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that, the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil), Baghapurana, recommended the name of Tarsem Singh (respondent No.3) for appointment to the post of Lambardar. He is a permanent resident. It is not a matter of dispute that he is the son of deceased Lambardar Tar Singh, his grandfather was also Harijan Lambardar and is well conversant with the functioning of Lambardari. 8. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar. The appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector, being In-charge of the Administration. It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such person in the office of Lambardar, who is eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates more closely. The choice of the Collector in the matter of Civil Writ Petition No.16192 of 2011 3 appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, specially when it is accepted by the Commissioner, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. 9. Having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the respective pros and cons of the candidates, the Collector came to a definite conclusion that, since, Tarsem Singh(respondent No.3) is more meritorious and suitable candidate, so, he appointed him as Lambardar, by means of impugned order dated 06.10.2010(Annexure P-1). 10. Not only that, the choice of the Collector was further upheld by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, vide impugned order dated 31.05.2011(Annexure P-3), the operative part of which is as under:- “I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The record of the case reveals that Tarsem Singh, respondent No.1, is the son of deceased Lambardar. His grandfather was also Harijan Lambardar. Thus, respondent No.1 has hereditary claim and is well conversant with the work of Lambardari. The respondent No.1 has passed 5th Class, and owns 10 Marlas of land. The respectable persons of the village have recommended his name for appointment as Harijan Lambardar. The Tehsildar and the S.D.M., Baghapurana have also recommended his name for appointment as Harijan Lambardar. On the other hand, though the appellant has passed Matric and is a Computer Diploma holder, but as per ruling reported in 1997(2) PLJ Page 380, “Educational qualification is not a pre-requisite for post of Lambardar and very high educational qualification may not be given over-riding importance”. Further, in the ruling reported in 1991 PLJ Page 781, it has been held that “Candidate being son of previous Lambardar-One among other qualifications to justify selection”. The learned District Collector, Moga, therefore, vide his order dated 06.10.2010, rightly appointed respondent No.1 as Harijan Lambardar of the village. It is well settled law that the choice of the District Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there has been illegality or perversity involved in the process of selection. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the appellant.” Civil Writ Petition No.16192 of 2011 4 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this regard. 12. Meaning thereby, the authorities have recorded the cogent grounds in the impugned orders in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. October 19, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE