SANJAY KUMAR Vs. JAIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was remanded to the Collector by the Commissioner vide order dtd. 2/4/2019. Post remand, order dtd. 15/5/2019 was passed by the Collector appointing respondent No. 1 as the Lambardar. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have failed and, thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear before the Collector as he was unwell. Medical certificate is on record. The same was also placed on record before the appellate and revisional authorities but they have erred in law in not taking the same into consideration. In the earlier round of litigation the petitioner had been appointed as the Lambardar. Thus, nonconsideration of the candidature of the petitioner on account of his illness was perverse as he was unwell.

(3.) A perusal of the order of the Collector shows that the factum of absence of the petitioner has been noted, however, that has not been made the basis of the order. The petitioner has been found unsuitable for appointment as Lambardar as there was a criminal case registered against him and the Lok Ayukta, Haryana had found him guilty of embezzlement of panchayat funds, apart from an order passed in a contempt petition. It is, thus, incorrect to argue that the order suffers from perversity. It is settled law that the choice of the Collector must be respected unless and until the same is perverse. The appellate and revisional authorities were, thus, justified in upholding the order.