SHARIF Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court, whereby the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 18.10.2011 appointing the present appellant as Lambardar of Village Sangha, Tehsil and District Bhiwani was set aside and that orders of the Collector and the Commissioner restored. The post of Lambardar of backward category of the village Sanga, District Bhiwani fell vacant after the death of Sadik. The Collector appointed Maman Chand as Lambardar on 29.06.2007. The appeal was dismissed on 23.06.2008 by the Learned Commissioner. But the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and the Commissioner on the ground that the present appellant is son of the deceased Lambardar, therefore, he has a preferential right of appointment. Learned Single Judge considered the arguments raised and found that the appellant is a permanent employee in the Post Office of Village Sanga, working as Gramin Dak Sewak since 10.01.1990 and would not be available either to the villagers or to the revenue officers. The hereditary claim is no more available. Therefore, the appellant cannot be given any preference in that regard. It has also been found that since the Collector made his choice appointing Maman Chand as Lambardar which choice was not interfered by the Commissioner, therefore, the Financial Commissioner could not set aside the choice of the Collector merely giving preference to the unsustainable hereditary claim of the appellant.

(2.) We find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity. Rules 15 and 17 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules deal with the first appointment of Lambardar and the successor Lambardar. Both the Rules read as under:

(3.) A perusal of the rules, after amendment, shows that consideration of hereditary claims for initial appointment of Lambardar was done away with as well the consideration of hereditary claims even in respect of appointing successor Lambardar, when clause (ii) of Rule 17 was also amended on 29.10.2010. In fact, the rule of primogeniture contained in clause (ii) of Rule 17 was done away with while substituting Clause (ii) on 29.07.2008. Such amendments are, in fact, give effect to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. The State of Haryana & others, 1973 PunLJ 676. In the said case, the Bench has held that Rule 15 relates to the first appointment of a headman, whereas Rule 17 relates to appointment of a successor to an office of a headman. Rule of primogeniture contained in Rule 17(ii) was found to be discriminatory on the ground of family connection. It was held to be violative of fundamental rights granted by Articles 14, 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India, consequently, Rule 17(ii) was declared to be ultra vires and unconstitutional. Thereafter, the Rules have been amended so as to exclude the reference of hereditary claim in the case of first appointment in terms of Rule 15 or even in respect of appointment of successor contained in Rule 17. Therefore, the hereditary claim could not have been taken into consideration by the Financial Commissioner as on the day he passed the order on 18.10.2011, as Rules 15 & 17 both stood amended before the said date.