CWP No. 10999 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10999 of 2009 Date of decision : 28.7.2009 Mohinder Singh ….. Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and Ors. ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Randhir Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Naina Goyal, Advocate for the Caveator/respondent No.4. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner aggrieved against the order appointing Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar of village Agwar Gujjran, Tehsil Jagraon against the post from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure P5) passed by the District Collector, Ludhiana (respondent No.3), the order dated 5.12.2007 (Annexure P6) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No.2) and the order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure P7) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab (respondent No.1). A further prayer has been made for directing respondents more particularly the District Collector, Ludhiana (respondent No.3) to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar of village Agwar Gujjran, Tehsil Jagraon. On account of the demise of Sh. Karnail Singh, Lambardar village Agwar Gujjran, Tehsil Jagraon, the post of Lambardar from amongst the members of CWP No. 10999 of 2009 -2- the Scheduled Castes fell vacant. Accordingly, the applications were invited for filling up the said vacancy. The petitioner and Baljit Singh (respondent No.4), besides five other candidates applied for the post of Lambardar. The Revenue Authorities including the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and Assistant Collector, Grade-I (SDM), Jagraon (Ludhiana) recommended the name of Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) for appointment as Lambardar. The District Collector, Ludhiana (respondent No.3) vide order dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure P-5) considered the comparative merit of all the candidates and after consideration, he considered Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) as good and proper candidates from amongst the others. It was observed that Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) was a permanent resident of the village, he had true relations with the villagers, he was not involved in any criminal case nor was he declared defaulter of any bank/society and besides, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and SDM, Jagraon had recommended his name for appointment as Lambardar. Accordingly, Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) was appointed as Lambardar. The said order was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide order dated 5.12.2007 (Annexure P6) and revision against the same was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab on 17.3.2009 (Annexure P7). Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Rule 19-B of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable to Haryana) (“Rules” – for short) provides for appointment of Lambardar from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that in appointing the headman in terms of Rules 19-B, the personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness is to be taken into account. It is submitted that petitioner is more suitable than Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) as many persons including the Executive Body of the Municipal Council, President Municipal Council, Jagraon, Vice-Chairman, Block Samiti, Jagraon and other respectables members of the Municipal Council, Jagraon had recommended the name of the petitioner in terms of the recommendation (Annexure P1). Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is more suitable and is CWP No. 10999 of 2009 -3- liable to be appointed as Lambardar keeping in view the recommendation (Annexure P1). It is also submitted that the learned District Collector, Ludhiana (respondent No.3) while passing the order dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure P5) has not considered as to why the petitioner was not fit and suitable for appointment as Lambardar. Therefore, it is submitted that the order dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure P5) is patently illegal. In response, learned counsel appearing for the Caveator/respondent No.4 has contended that all the revenue authorities had recommended the name of Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) and therefore, he has been found to be more suitable. It is submitted that the choice of the District Collector is not to be interfered with as it is not shown to be perverse or improper and it may be interfered with in case of perversity or gross illegality, which is not the position in the present case. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are liable to be sustained and upheld. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the choice of Lambardar is primarily the prerogative and administrative act of the District Collector. His selection is normally not to be undone unless and until it is shown that the same suffers from gross irregularity, perversity or there is some patent error in his appointment. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities in the choice of Lambardar. This Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence and material on record and thereby re- determine as to who would be the better choice for the post of Lambardar. Review of the quasi-judicial orders to that extent is limited. Therefore, the District Collector and the revenue authorities having found Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) to be more suitable and there being no irregularity, perversity or patent error in his appointment, his (respondent No.4) appointment is not liable to be undone. CWP No. 10999 of 2009 -4- The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the context of Rule 19-B of the Rules that the personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness is a relevant consideration for appointment of Lambardar is not in dispute. The District Collector in his order dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure P5) has considered the comparative merit of the candidates and found Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) as good and proper candidate amongst the others. It was observed that he was a permanent resident of the village, secondly he had good relations with the villagers, thirdly he was not involved in any criminal case nor was he declared defaulter of any bank/society, fourthly, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and SDM, Jagraon had recommended his name for appointment as Lambardar. The candidature of the petitioner was considered and it was noticed that the petitioner was 45 years of age. He was 8th class pass and was permanent resident of the village. Besides, he belonged to Ramdassia caste which is a Scheduled Castes. Therefore, after noticing the said facts it cannot be said that the inter se merit of the petitioner and respondent No.4 were not considered. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the recommendations of the revenue authorities i.e. the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and SDM Jagraon cannot be preferred to that of recommendations made by almost 200 villagers including members of the Municipal Council and Vice-Chairman, Block Samiti, Jagraon etc. It may however be noticed that in the consideration process, the District Collector on whose choice primarily the Lambardar is appointed, is to take factors into consideration of the lower revenue authorities. Besides, it is not an election where a person who gets more signatories is to be considered for appointment. It is for the District Collector to see as to who would be the more suitable person after assessment of the relative merit of each candidates. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has 200 villagers and members of the Municipal Council, Jagraon who has signed in his favour would not mean that the consideration process of the District Magistrate has been vitiated. It is well-known that this Court CWP No. 10999 of 2009 -5- while exercising its writ jurisdiction is concerned with the decision making process and is not to sit in appeal over the decision taken on merit. There being nothing wrong in the decision making process. The same is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground that more number of persons had signed in favour of the petitioner by recommending him for appointment as Lambardar. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 28, 2009 amit