DEVENDER SINGH Vs. NARENDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 1.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while allowing the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 13748 of 2009) filed by Narender Singh (respondent No. 1) challenging the order dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, the orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner regarding appointment of Lambardar of village Shahadat Nagar, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari, were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Collector, for deciding the same afresh in view of the observations made in the judgment. On account of death of the previous Lambardar of the village, the office of Lambardar of the village had fallen vacant. In response to the munadi conducted for appointment of Lambardar, six applications were received. After the character verification, only two candidates, namely Devender Singh (appellant) and Narender Singh (respondent No. 1), were left. The Collector, District Rewari, vide his order dated 30.9.2005 (Annexure P-1) appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village, while observing as under:-

(2.) After notice, we have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders of the revenue authorities.

(3.) It has not been disputed before us that respondent No. 1 is working as Assistant Development Officer in the Agriculture Department and is posted at Kosli. Being a Government employee and in discharge of his official duties, he is supposed to remain in his office throughout the day, on each and every working day. He is also liable to be transferred from one place to another throughout the State of Haryana. A Lambardar of the village has to remain in the village throughout the day to help the villagers. He has to accompany them to various offices to identify them for the purpose of attestation of various documents, execution of sale deeds, etc. Therefore, respondent No. 1, being a Government employee posted at Kosli, away from village Shahadat Nagar, will not be available in the village to perform his duties as Lambardar of the village. The Collector, while taking into consideration this fact, and further taking into consideration the other merits and de-merits of the candidates, came to the conclusion that though there was no restriction for appointment of a Government servant to the post of Lambardar, yet in the event of availability of other suitable candidate, preference need not be given to the government employee, because the government employee lives out of village whereas Lambardar should reside in the village and respondent No. 1 being a Government employee, will not be available for the villagers throughout the day. On these considerations, the Collector appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village. In our opinion, because of non-availability of respondent No. 1 in the village due to his employment as Assistant Development Officer in the Agriculture Department, Haryana, the Collector had rightly ignored him. A Government servant, who has to remain in his office throughout the day in connection with discharge of his official duties, cannot be available in the village throughout the day, therefore, such a person should not be given preference for appointment to the post of Lambardar, when other suitable candidate is available.