Civil Writ Petition No.21040 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21040 of 2011 Date of Decision:15.11.2011 Zile Singh ......Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of death of Phoola alias Phool Singh, the post of Lambardar(Scheduled Caste) of the Village Rana Kheri, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, had fallen vacant. According to Veer Bhan son of Risal Singh (respondent No.4), neither any proclamation was done, nor mandatory procedure for the appointment of Lambardar was complied in the instant case, as contemplated under the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Rules framed thereunder(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the Relevant Rules”). It was claimed that the Collector only received one application of petitioner-Zile Singh and appointed him on the indicated post of Lambardar, without following the due procedure, by way of order dated 03.09.2009(Annexure P-2). 2. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-2, Veer Bhan-respondent No.4 filed the appeal, which was accepted and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, by virtue of Civil Writ Petition No.21040 of 2011 2 impugned order dated 06.05.2011(Annexure P-3), the operative part of which is as under:- “I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels and have perused the record carefully. The appellant has mainly raised the objection that no proclamation done in the village to fill up this post of Lambardar. The application of the respondent has been submitted much before the permission granted by the Collector, on which the action has been taken in a clandestine manner. The record and documents available on the file have been perused which shows that the respondent Zile Singh has submitted his application for appointment as Lambardar on dated 27.10.2008 and on this application, the Naib Tehsildar has written on dated 15.01.2009 to the Sub Divisional Officer(C) for grant of permission to initiate the process of filling up post of Lambardar and thereafter, Sub Divisional Officer(C) has written to the Collector dated 28.01.2009 on which the Collector has granted the permission on dated 04.02.2009. Thereafter, Naib Tehsildar has ordered to the Area Patwari on dated 01.04.2009 for conducting proclamation in the village as per which the applications were invited till dated 20.05.2009. Though in the daily diary register dated 22.04.2009, there is a mention of letter dated 01.04.2009 of the Naib Tehsildar to conduct proclamation in the village but no such report of Area Patwari is available on the file to show that in compliance of the order of Naib Tehsildar, the Patwari got conducted the proclamation in the village. This way, I feel that there is a force in the submission of appellant to say that no proclamation was done in the village and the application dated 27.10.2008 of the respondent Zile Singh has been taken into consideration. The observation made by the Collector in the impugned order to say that the application of Zile Singh was received within the stipulated period, is wholly without any basis while in fact, as per record, no such application was received within the stipulated time. This way, there is also merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the whole proceedings for filling up this post of Lambardar has been done in clandestine manner on application of respondent Zile Singh and no opportunity was provided to the other villagers for submission of their applications. Otherwise, the respondent Zile Singh has stated his age to be 60 yrs. in his application dated 27.10.2008 and he has only passed fifth class. If the proclamation was done in the village, in that eventuality, many applications could have been received from much meritorious candidates. Therefore, in the above Civil Writ Petition No.21040 of 2011 3 facts, I feel that the subordinate have committed irregularity and carelessness in appointment of Lambardar in the present case. Collector has not gone through the facts carefully therefore, while accepting this appeal, the impugned order passed by the Collector is set aside and the Collector, Sonepat is directed to take de novo action for appointment against vacant post of the Lambardar of the village as per rules.” 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order(Annexure P-3), petitioner-Zile Singh filed the revision petition, which was dismissed as well by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, by means of impugned order dated 28.07.2011(Annexure P-4). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the proclamation was conducted on 22.04.2009(Annexure P-1), so, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, committed a legal mistake in remanding the matter in this respect, sans merit. 7. As is evident from the record that, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, has perused the record and recorded a finding of fact that the report of Halqa Patwari is not available on file to show that in compliance with the order of the Naib Tehsildar, the Patwari actually got conducted the proclamation in the village in this connection. It was also noticed that the application of Zile Singh was not received within the stipulated time and no opportunity was granted to the other villagers for submission of their applications. Moreover, it was the statutory duty of the Collector, to verify the fact that the proclamation was actually conducted in the village, which is totally lacking in the present case. In other words, the Collector has violated the statutory provisions of the Relevant Rules in Civil Writ Petition No.21040 of 2011 4 this regard with impunity and has not exercised his choice judiciously. The mistake committed by the Collector in this relevant behalf was rightly corrected by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, through the medium of impugned orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4), respectively. 8. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this relevant connection. Above all, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply and reiterate his claim before the Collector, for appointment of the indicated post of Lambardar. 9. Meaning thereby, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, have recorded the cogent grounds in the impugned orders in this respect. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 15, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE