RAM PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL) - By way of the instant writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.04.2014 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.1, order dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.3.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the post of Lambardar stood vacant on account of death of earlier Lambardar, namely Bhartu Ram. Thereafter, the Collector accorded sanction to fill up the said post of Lambardar out of general category. The process was started, munadi got effected in the village and in pursuance thereto, only 16 applications were received. Out of 16 candidates, only four including the present petitioner appeared and the remaining were proceeded against ex parte. The revenue officer sent the file to respondent No.3 with the recommendation of name of respondent No.4 for appointment of Lambardar and he was appointed as such, vide order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred separate appeals, which were dismissed, by virtue of common order dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner also filed ROR No. 249 before respondent No.1 but the same was also dismissed, upholding the order passed by respondent Nos. 2 & 3, by way of order dated 21.04.2014.

(3.) It is contended that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed being perverse, illegal and arbitrary in nature. The petitioner is an educated person and is suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar. The authorities have wrongly appointed the respondent No.4 on the post of Lambardar, ignoring the fact that there is a criminal case pending against respondent No.4. The petitioner is the real grandson of earlier Lambardar, namely Bhartu Ram and the petitioner used to help him in his work. The petitioner is well conversant with the working of Lambardar, therefore, the orders appointing the respondent No.4 as Lambardar, deserve to be quashed.