Civil Writ Petition No.20517 of 2009. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20517 of 2009. Date of Order: 08.01.2010 Gugan Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner challenges the appointment of Raghbir Singh, respondent no.4 as Lambardar of Village Maikalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani, by praying that a writ of certiorari be issued by quashing the orders dated 01.12.2009 and 29.12.2006, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, and the Collector, Bhiwani, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the Collector appointing respondent no.4 as Lambardar and by the Financial Commissioner affirming his appointment are contrary to law as the hereditary claim of the petitioner has been disregarded. The petitioner is the son of the deceased Lambardar and was, therefore, entitled to preferential appointment to the post of Lambardar. The petitioner is even otherwise better qualified and respondent no.4 does not own land in the patti. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold that the Collector and the Financial Commissioner committed any error of law as would Civil Writ Petition No.20517 of 2009. -2- require interference. It is a settled position in law that the choice of the Collector in appointing a Lambardar is final except where the discretion exercised by the Collector is perverse, preposterous, contrary to law or arbitrary. The order passed by the Collector does not suffer from any of these infirmities. The petitioner's argument that his hereditary claim should have been granted precedence, disregards a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1973 P.L.J. 676, wherein Rule 17 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, in so far as it prescribes precedence to hereditary claims was held to be ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rule 15 of the Rules enacts a similar hereditary right and, therefore, cannot be pressed into service in cases relating to appointment of a Lambardar. The argument that respondent no.4 does not own any land in the patti remains unsubstantiated for want of reference to the land holding or the particulars of the concerned patti. The argument that the petitioner is better qualified, having cleared Class-VII as opposed to the respondent no.4 having only passed Class-IV is entirely irrelevant as the amended rule that prescribes a minimum qualification of middle class is preceded by the word “preferably”, thus indicating that the rule is not mandatory. Even otherwise, this rule was incorporated after the initial appointment of the private respondent, as Lambardar. Dismissed. January 08, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE