JATAN PAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal lays challenge to order dated 05.07.2012 dismissing the writ petition and thereby upholding the appointment of Om Parkash respondent No.3 as Lambardar of village Kabulpur Khadar Patti Parvarish, Tehsil and District Faridabad.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that the name of the appellant was recommended by the Assistant Collectors Ist and IInd Grade and he was appointed as Lambardar of the village by the District Collector in the light of relative merits of the contesting candidates. It is argued that the experience of the appellant as Sarbarah Lambardar, though taken into consideration, even if ignored, would not adversely affect his right to hold the post of Lambardar if comparative merits of the parties are perused. The Commissioner, in appeal, wrongly set aside the order passed by the District Collector and substituted his own perception as to suitability and fitness of contesting candidates, a course not permissible in law. The learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration that the choice of the District Collector is final, until there is any patent error, illegality or perversity in the decision of the District Collector. It is further argued that the appellant is a resident of village Dhakola which adjoins village Kabulpur Khadar Patti Parvarish, Tehsil and District Faridabad, to which, the lambardari pertains. The appellant owns agricultural land in the revenue estate of village Dhakola and in fact 50% of land holdings in village Kabulpur Khadar Patti Parvarish, are owned by residents of village Dhakola.

(3.) Counsel for the contesting respondent submits that the District Collector committed a patent error in considering the experience of the appellant as Sarbarah of his father. The appellant is not a resident of village Kabulpur Khadar Patti Parvarish and there was no reason for the District Collector to have appointed the appellant when respondent No. 3, is a resident of village Kabulpur Khadar Patti Parvarish and a candidate with better merit was available for appointment. It is argued with vehemence that the Commissioner, rightly noticed an illegality in the order of the District Collector and, therefore, set aside the decision of the District Collector. The orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, in favour of respondent No. 3 have been rightly upheld in the writ petition. As there is no error much less infirmity in the order impugned, in appeal, the appeal may be dismissed.