Civil Writ Petition No.19759 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19759 of 2011 Date of Decision:20.10.2011 Kuljeet Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) As is evident from the record that, petitioner-Kuljeet Singh son of Milkha Singh, was appointed as Lambardar of the Village Masana, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, without considering comparative merits and demerits of all the candidates, by the Collector vide order dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure P-2). 2. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-2), Mukhtiar Singh son of Sohan Singh(respondent No.4) and Surmukh Singh son of Kartar Singh (respondent No.5) filed two separate appeals, which were accepted by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, by way of impugned order dated 21.12.2010(Annexure P-3). 3. The revision petitions filed by the petitioner against the order (Annexure P-3) were dismissed as well by the Financial Commissioner, by virtue of impugned order dated 22.07.2011(Annexure P-4). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4) and preferred the present civil writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Writ Petition No.19759 of 2011 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this relevant context. 6. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of the learned counsel that, since the petitioner was more meritorious, so, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, as well as the Financial Commissioner, committed a legal mistake, in remanding the case, for its fresh decision, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. Legally, it was the statutory duty of the Collector, to consider the comparative pros and cons of all the candidates, as per established practice and procedure for appointment of Lambardar, which was ignored by him in this regard. If the petitioner is more meritorious, as urged on his behalf, then he will remain as such, and may project his qualification during the course of fresh hearing of the case on merits by the Collector, in pursuance of the remand order. 8. What is not disputed here is that the Collector did not take into consideration the comparative merits and demerits and education of each candidate and ignored the relevant factors, while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, rectified the mistake committed by the Collector and remitted the matter, for fresh decision, by means of impugned order dated 21.12.2010(Annexure P-3), which in substance is as under:- “The Collector while passing the order in appeal has not discussed the educational qualification of the respondent. According to rules, there is no maximum age limit for the appointment of Lambardar. It is necessary, the candidate should be mentally and physically fit. Instead of that the candidate should be educated but preference by given to person of 8th pass. In the present case, Collector while passing the order in the appeal has not considered the rules and provisions and the eligibility of the candidates. In my opinion, it is justified that if the case should be re-decided by the Collector as per rules and provisions and after considering the eligibility of candidate. In these circumstances, the order passed by the lower courts is Civil Writ Petition No.19759 of 2011 3 set-aside and this case is remanded back to Collector, Kurukshetra with direction that the case should be decided after hearing both the parties and after giving opportunity to lead evidence and keeping in view the facts mentioned above. Parties are directed to appear in the lower court on 25.1.2011.” 9. Not only that, the order(Annexure P-3) of the Commissioner was further upheld by the Financial Commissioner, through the medium of impugned order(Annexure P-4). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this respect. 11. Meaning thereby, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, and the Financial Commissioner have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4), containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited 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 are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. October 20, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE