IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.9194 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 16, 2011 RAMESH CHANDER ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. SS Kharb, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Petitioner-Ramesh Chander son of Shiv Narain and respondent No.4-Rajesh Kumar son of Ishwar Singh are competing for the post of Lambardar for Village Karad, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat. 2 The undisputed facts are that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are both under matric pass and, therefore, equal in qualification. On the date when the applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar were invited, the petitioner was 53 years of age, whereas respondent No.4 Civil Writ Petition No.9194 of 2010 2 was about 20 years of age. The petitioner has initiated 10 family planning cases, whereas respondent No.4 has initiated 5 such cases. The petitioner got ` 11 lacs deposited in small savings whereas respondent No.4 got ` 90,000 deposited in small savings. The petitioner is shown to have 13 kanals 10 marlas of land, whereas respondent No.4 has 2 kanals 11 marlas of land. 3 Considering the comparative merit, the Collector, Panipat, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, which has been allowed vide order (Annexure P-4) on the ground that a newspaper publication in Dainik Bhaskar had been issued, indicating that the petitioner had been disowned by his father. Subsequently, a release deed had been executed in favour of the petitioner. The Commissioner has recorded that the petitioner earned a stigma on his character on account of dispossession from the property of his father. The Commissioner has also recorded that the petitioner was a defaulter of Oriental Bank of Commerce. It, however, is the admitted case that the petitioner has not been a defaulter. Be that as it may, the Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Collector, thereby appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Civil Writ Petition No.9194 of 2010 3 4 The petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner remanded the case back to the Commissioner to verify whether the petitioner was involved in commission of an offence under the Forest Act, by way of felling trees illegally. The said order dated 26.2.2009 has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. 5 The Commissioner vide order dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) made a report to the Financial Commissioner that the petitioner has not committed any offence under the Forest laws/rules. 6 Vide impugned order (Annexure P-7), the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and the order passed by the Commissioner has been maintained. Resultantly, respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one after the other, false complaints were made at the instance of respondent No.4 or his family members, which indicates the conduct of respondent No.4 to be manipulative. Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserts that respondent No.4, at the point in time, when the applications were invited, was about 20 years of age and was only a student and, therefore, would be immature for discharging the duties of a Lambardar. Civil Writ Petition No.9194 of 2010 4 8 Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that a publication in the newspaper cannot be taken as an evidence of dispossession of the petitioner. The facts, as they exist, clearly indicate that the petitioner is owner in possession of 13 kanals 10 marlas of land whereas, respondent No.4 has 2 kanals 11 marlas of land. It has also been projected that the petitioner is a mature person with substantial social service, as compared to respondent No.4. 9 Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has argued that on the date when the applications for the post of Lambardar were invited, the petitioner stood dispossessed. It has also been argued that the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are legal and no interference therein is called for. 10 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, in the context of the papers placed before me, for consideration. 11 The Collector directed appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar, holding him to be more suitable, being 43 years of age and a mature person. The petitioner has more land as compared to respondent No.4. The petitioner had more small savings and family planning cases to his credit. The news report, per se, cannot be Civil Writ Petition No.9194 of 2010 5 taken as evidence of the fact that the petitioner had been dispossessed. Rather, the father of the petitioner had transferred all his property in the name of his both sons, proof whereof is available on the file. 12 Considering the comparative merit, no interference was called for in appellate jurisdiction by the Commissioner. It is not in dispute that, at the point in time, when the applications were invited, respondent No.4 was in school. A person, who had just stepped out of school, cannot be expected to discharge the duties as given out in Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. 13 Be that as it may, the Financial Commissioner remanded the case to the Commissioner to seek a report as to whether the petitioner was involved in committing an offence under the Forest Act. After remand, the papers were placed before the Financial Commissioner. On a perusal of para-5 of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, I find that notice of the innocence of the petitioner under the Forest Act has not been taken. Rather, the only circumstance which has been given weightage is the strained relations between the father and the son. 14 In my considered opinion, once the case had been remanded by the Financial Commissioner seeking Civil Writ Petition No.9194 of 2010 6 clarification, the said fact should have been dealt with in the operative part of the order. 15 In any case, no perversity can be traced in the order passed by the Collector and, therefore, no interference therein was called for at all. The merits of the petitioner and respondent No.4 have been considered by the Collector. No illegality therein can be traced. The petitioner cannot be held to be ineligible to apply for the post of Lambardar. Suitability for the post was required to be considered by the Collector, which has been considered favourably, in favour of the petitioner. 16 In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, Annexures P-4 and P-7, respectively, are hereby quashed. Order (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector in appointing the petitioner as Lambardar, is upheld. February 16, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?