BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the petitioner was a Lambardar of village Daroli, District Rewari. Due to his death, the post fell vacant. In response to the invitation for applications, 11 candidates applied for appointment as Lambardar. After scrutiny, only four candidates remained in the field. All the candidates submitted their testimonials. Assistant Collector 2nd Grade recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rewari, however, recommended the name of respondent No.6. Collector, after considering the relevant merits, appointed petitioner as Lambardar, which was challenged by respondent No.6 by filing appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner set-aside the order passed by the Collector and appointed respondent No.6 as Lambardar. The order of the Commissioner was upheld by the Financial Commissioner and accordingly the petitioner has approached this court through the present writ petition.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that choice exercised by the Collector should normally be upheld and should not be interfered with. That may be a true statement of law, but I find that Collector had not considered certain relevant factors while appointing petitioner as Lambardar. Those facts have been noticed by the Commissioner. The petitioner was accused of bigamy. His wife appeared during the course of hearing and complained accordingly. Another factor which was submitted before the Commissioner was that the son of the petitioner was convicted for having committed an offence under Sections 376, 506, 34 IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for ten years. In this background, the hereditary claim, which was taken in favour of the petitioner, certainly could not have been held to his advantage. The relevant consideration, which ought to have been considered, thus, was ignored by the Collector and the Commissioner rightly interfered with the choice exercised by the Collector. The Commissioner was conscious of this fact that the choice of the Collector is final until and unless there is illegality or perversity in the order. Finding the order to be perverse, the Commissioner has interfered with. The approach by the Commissioner appears justified and would not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.