SURINDER KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER, HISAR DIVISION, HISAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ] This revision petition is under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, against the orders dated 12.3.2001 and 27.4.1999, passed by the ld. Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and ld. Collector, Sirsa, respectively vide which the order of the ld. Collector, Sirsa, regarding appointment of Surinder Kumar s/o Puran Chand as Lambardar of Village Panjwana, Tehsil and District Sirsa was set aside by the ld. Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, vide order dated 12.3.2001.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that due to the death of Lal Chand, Lambardar of village Panjwana (Sirsa) the proceedings for filling up the vacancy of Lambardar were initiated. 20 candidates applied for the said post but only six candidates appeared before Tehsildar. The Tehsildar and SDO(C) Sirsa, recommended the name of Surinder Kumar (petitioner) for appointment to the post of Lambardar to the ld. Collector, Sirsa, who appointed him as such vide order dated 27.4.1999, against which Ram Sarup filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar. After hearing the arguments of ld. counsel on both sides, it was found that the comparative merits of the candidates must be gone into while appointing Lambardar. In the present case, the ld. Collector has not done so. Consequently the appeal was accepted and impugned order of the ld. Collector, Sirsa, was set aside and Ram Sarup was appointed as Lambardar of village Panjwana Tehsil and District Sirsa, vide order dated 12.3.2001 by ld. Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) THE ld. counsel for the respondent rebutted the version of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner and argued that the decision of ld. Collector, Sirsa, in appointing the petitioner as Lambardar was totally one sided and it did not take into consideration the comparative merits of the respondent. The ld. Collector, Sirsa on the contrary had ignored the weightage of the land holding in favour of the respondent and he had given weightage to the social service aspects of the respondent. As regards the educational qualifications, there is not much difference between the education of 10th or 10+2, so far as the discharge of duties of Lambardar is concerned. As regards the Sarbrah experience claim of the petitioner is concerned, there is no record regarding the appointment of the father of the petitioner as Sarbrah of his grandfather. Moreover, father of the petitioner was a Gauge Reader. As regards the Social Service Certificates of the respondent are concerned, they are acquired after the initiation of lambardari proceedings. Therefore, the same should not be taken into consideration. Therefore, the plea of the ld. Counsel for the respondent is that ld. Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, has only rectified the mistake, committed by the ld. Collector, Sirsa, in not making due comparison of the respective merits of the candidates and the petition is worth being dismissed.