Civil Writ Petition No. 1453 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1453 of 2009 Date of Order: 11.02.2010 Jaswant ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok K. Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. A.G.,Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for respondents No.4 RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner challenges orders dated 24.10.2007, 12.01.2009, passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. Upon the demise of Gulab Singh, Lambardar, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The petitioner, respondent no.4 and others applied for selection. The S.D.O(C), Rewari recommended the name of Tejbhan @ Tejbir, respondent no.4 for appointment as a Lambardar and sent the file to the Collector. Vide order dated 06.10.2006, the Collector, without appointing any candidate held that as a proper munadi had not been Civil Writ Petition No. 1453 of 2009 -2- conducted, the S.D.O (C), Rewari would have to conduct a fresh munadi. Aggrieved by this order, both the petitioner and respondent no.4 filed separate appeals. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and accepted the appeal filed by respondent no.4 and held that as there was no error in the munadi, the Collector erred in directing a fresh proclamation. However, instead of remitting the matter to the Collector, the Commissioner directed the appointment of Tejbhan @ Tejbir, respondent no.4, as the Lambardar. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed on 12.01.2009. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the Collector did not select any candidate and only ordered a fresh proclamation, the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner while holding that the proclamation was valid had no jurisdiction to appoint the Lambardar. The only course open to the Commissioner was to remit the matter to the Collector to appraise the merits of all candidates and thereafter select the best candidate. Counsel for the private respondent on the other hand submits that the Commissioner rightly appointed respondent no.4 as there is no statutory prohibition that prohibits the Commissioner from appointing a Lambardar. It is further submitted that the Commissioner was justified in ordering the appointment of respondent no.4, as the petitioner and respondent no.4 made a request that their appeals be decided on merits. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned Civil Writ Petition No. 1453 of 2009 -3- orders and have no hesitation in holding that the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction while proceeding to direct the appointment of respondent no.4. It is an established position of law, repeatedly reiterated by this Court, that the authority to appoint a Lambardar vests in the Collector. In the absence of any order passed by the Collector, appointing any candidate as the Lambardar, the Commissioner, being the appellate authority could not usurp the powers of the Collector, appraise the merits of candidates and appoint respondent no.4. It would also be necessary to mention here that while appointing respondent no.4, the Commissioner did not appraise the merits of the petitioner or the other candidates. Assuming for a moment that the Commissioner is empowered to appoint a Lambardar, in all fairness to the petitioner and the other candidates, their merits should have been considered. The Commissioner lost sight of the fact that apart from the petitioner and respondent no.4, there were other candidates. The order passed by the Commissioner is, therefore, without jurisdiction and would have to be set aside. The Financial Commissioner, on the other hand, failed in the discharge of his jurisdiction to discern this error and passed an order in a mechanical manner, without assigning any reasons. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, orders dated 24.10.2007, 12.01.2009 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Rewari, to decide the matter with respect to appointment of the Lambardar of village Jetrawas, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Rewari, Civil Writ Petition No. 1453 of 2009 -4- on 10.03.2010. In case, respondent no.4 is functioning as the Lambardar, he shall continue to work till the decision of the Collector. February 11, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE