CWP No.23025 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.23025 of 2010 Date of Decision : 22.12.2010 Satish Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner impugns orders dated 28.10.2009 and 14.7.2010 passed by the Commissioner,Ambala Division,Ambala and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, setting aside the order dated 15.7.2009, passed by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was the better candidate, he was appointed, as the Lambardar by the Collector. The petitioner's selection has been wrongly set aside by the Commissioner and the order passed by the Commissioner has been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner on an erroneous and illegal appreciation of facts and law. It is further argued that as the petitioner is the real brother of the deceased Lambardar, his hereditary claim should have received due consideration in accordance with Rule 15(a) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Reliance for CWP No.23025 of 2010 2 this argument is placed upon a judgement Harsharan Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab and others, reported as 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 909. It is further argued that as the choice of the Collector is final, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Collector. . I have heard counsel for the petitioner and express my inability to accede to the arguments advanced. The petitioner was appointed by the Collector by giving precedence to his hereditary claim, despite the fact that Brijesh Kumar,respondent no.4 was better educated. The Commissioner reversed this order by holding that benefit of hereditary claim cannot be granted and appointed respondent no.4, as he is a graduate, has worked for social causes and the Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution in his favour. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner by rejecting his argument that he is more meritorious and entitled to appointment on the basis of his hereditary claim. The petitioner's argument of a preferential right to appointment on the basis of his hereditary claim is contrary to a Division Bench judgement of this court reported as Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1973 PLJ 676, wherein while considering hereditary claims, of a candidate for the post of Lambardar, it was held that such a claim is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench judgement was apparently not brought to the notice of the court in Harsharan Singh's case (supra). The finding in Harsharan Singh's case (supra) that precedence is to be accorded to hereditary claims being contrary to the Division Bench judgement in Karnail Singh's case (supra)cannot be cited as a binding precedent. As regards the plea that the choice of the Collector CWP No.23025 of 2010 3 is final, suffice it to state, that where the choice of the Collector is perverse, arbitrary or violative of any rule, it cannot be final and may,circumstances so permitting be rectified by appellate or revisional authorities. As the Collector granted the benefit of hereditary claim to the petitioner and ignored the better qualifications of respondent no.4, the Commissioner rightly set aside the appointment of the petitioner and appointed respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner affirming the order passed by the Commissioner is legal and valid and does not call for interference. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is dismissed. 22.12.2010 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE