LPA 1023 of 12009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1023 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision 21.10.2009 Gian Singh ...Appellant Versus Major Singh ... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Jatinder Singla,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The appellant Gian Singh has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the judgement dated 5.5.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 18770 of 2009. The learned Single Judge has noticed that respondent No. 1 - Major Singh was 47 years old at the time of considering him for appointment to the office of Lambardar and had educational qualification of 10+2. He owned 12 kanals of land and had remained Sarbrah Lambardar for ten years. Accordingly, he was found to be well conversant with the working of Lambardar. It has also come on record that he is nephew of deceased Lambardar who had died some where in 2000. During the lifetime of his uncle he was discharging the duties of Lambardar. The Collector had found respondent no.1- Major Singh more suitable and better qualified for appointment as Lambardar. He also preferred respondent no.1-Major Singh to the appellant as he had been Sarbrah Lambardar for 10 years during which period no complaint had been received against him. He was relatively LPA 1023 of 12009 2 younger than the appellant who at the time of consideration was 60 years of age whereas respondent no.1- Major Singh was 47 years of age. However, the Commissioner differed with the view taken by the Collector by ignoring the age factor. The appellant is less qualified as he is merely a matriculate as against respondent no.1- Major Singh. The appellant was involved in a FIR in which he was subsequently acquitted. The learned Single Judge has opined that the aforesaid fact may not constitute disqualification but always be a factor which can be taken into account while considering the relevant merits of the candidate. The order of the Commissioner was upheld by the Financial Commissioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Infact the requirement of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules stand satisfied by respondent Major Singh. It is well settled that ordinarily the recommendations made by the Collector are not to be interfered with unless there is flagrant violation of the principles enshrined by Rule 15 of the Rules and no reasonable person would adopt such a view. Therefore, we find that the appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 21.10.2009 Judge okg