IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.789 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.7.2010 Gulab Rai …..Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Respondent Kehar Singh was appointed as Lamberdar of village Chhapri, tehsil Shahbad, district Kurukshetra by the Collector vide order dated 21.1.2009. In his order, it was observed as under:- “I have heard the arguments of both the counsel and carefully perused the evidence on record. There is no force in the argument of the counsel for Gulab Rai that the person belonging to the saini caste should not be appointed as Lamberdar, the post reserved for backward class. There is no mention of B.C.(A) or B.C.(B) category the in the Punjab Land Revenue Rules for appointment of Lamberdar in backward category. From the above mentioned two applicants, Kehar Singh is more suitable candidate than Gulab Rai for the post of Lamberdar as he used to take active part in the social activities of village, having support of more villagers and gram Letters Patent Appeal No.789 of 2010 Panchayat has given written support in his favour. Thus, Kehar Singh s/o Juna Ram is appointed as Lamberdar of village Chhapri against the sanctioned post of Lamberdar in the backward class category. Identity card and Sanand Lambardari may be issued. The copy of this order be sent to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Thanesar for necessary action.” The Collector’s choice was upset by the Commissioner. Respondent Kehar Singh went in revision, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 19.1.2010. It was observed on merits that respondent Kehar Singh was a better candidate as compared to the appellant Gulab Rai. Appellant filed CWP No.6023 of 2010 to lay challenge to the above said order which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 4.5.2010 by observing as under:- “I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold that the Collector or the Financial Commissioner have committed any error of jurisdiction, as would require interference. Admittedly, FIR No.703 was registered in the year 1997 and was withdrawn without investigation, without a challan or without any trial. The FIR, therefore, cannot be pressed into service against respondent No.4. The plea that respondent No.4 is not available in the village has not been established by any clear or cogent evidence. Offering sewa at a temple would not raise an inference of employment or that respondent No.4 would not be available to the public at large.” 2 Letters Patent Appeal No.789 of 2010 We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Once, the Collector has held, as a matter of fact, that respondent Kehar Singh was a better candidate, as per established law, his choice is not to be interfered with, unless it is contrary to the facts and law. No legal flaw has been indicated. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 13.07.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3