KRISHAN GOPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer made in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure P1) passed by the Financial Commissioner as well as the order dated 24.3.2004 (Annexure P2) passed by the Commissioner; and also for restoring the order dated 20.10.2003 (Annexure P3) passed by the Collector, Rohtak, whereby the petitioner has been appointed as Lambardar of village Kalanaur Khurd, District Rohtak.

(2.) IN short the facts giving rise to the present petition are that after the death of Chaman Lal, father of the petitioner, the post of Lambardar fell vacant and applications from inhabitants of the village were invited. The petitioner, respondent No. 4 and several other persons applied for appointment as such. The petitioner staked his claimed to the post on the ground that he was the son of the deceased Lambardar and also that he had studied upto 9th Class. However, no certificate in support of his educational qualification was produced. Respondent No. 4, who had studied upto 6th Class, staked his claim on the ground that he had much more land as compared to the one owned by the petitioner. The Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and the S.D.O. (Civil) recommended the name of respondent No. 4 for being appointed as Lambardar. However, the Collector, Rohtak, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on the ground that he was the son of previous Lambardar and he had also studied up to 9th Class. The order passed by the Collector was set aside in appeal by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, vide order dated 24.3.2004 on the ground that respondent No. 4 was more meritorious candidate as compared to the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 had 76 Kanals 12 Marlas of land as against 3 Kanals and 8 Marlas owned by the petitioner. So far educational qualification of the petitioner is concerned, it has been held by the Commissioner that the petitioner has not produced any certificate in support of his claim of having studied upto 9th Class. The other qualifications of both the candidates with regard to their age and contribution towards Small Savings Scheme as well as Family Welfare Scheme was almost the same. Respondent No. 4 was 40 years of age whereas the age of the petitioner was 35 years at the relevant time. Ultimately, vide order dated 24.3.2004 (Annexure P2) the Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Collector and appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure P1) on the ground that revision under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act was not maintainable. Now the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) THE short submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector has a final word in the appointment of a Lambardar and the Commissioner ought not to have interfered with his decision until or unless there was any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector. In support of his contention, the counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sarwan Kumar v. The Financial Commissioner Appeals Punjab and others, 2002(2) RCR(Civil) 520 : 2002(1) PLJ 407. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have vehemently been controverted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the case file meticulously. 7. In the present case, so far as the individual merit of each candidate is concerned, there is not much difference in the ages of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. The petitioner statedly is 35 years old, whereas the age of respondent No. 4 is 40 years. The case of the petitioner is that he had studied upto ninth class whereas the educational qualification of respondent No. 4 was sixth class pass. However, the petitioner has not produced any documentary proof with regard to his educational qualification. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 has produced the certificate with regard to his having studied upto 6th Class. Thus, no weightage can be given to the petitioner with regard to his educational qualification as compared to the educational qualification of respondent No. 4. However, there is much difference in both the candidates if we see their ownership of land in the village. In the present case respondent No. 4 is owning 76 Kanals 12 Marlas of land, whereas the land owned by the petitioner is 3 Kanals and 8 Marlas. It is an essential requirement while making appointment to the post of Lambardar that a candidate must own a sufficient landed property in order to secure the recoveries made by him from the inhabitants of the village. Thus, looking to the land owned by the two candidates, we are of the considered opinion that respondent No. 4 is definitely having an edge over the petitioner. 8. So far as their individual contribution towards the Small Saving Scheme is concerned, it has come on record that respondent No. 4 had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- as against the deposit of Rs. 1,85,000/- made by the petitioner. Here also respondent No. 4 is ahead in race in comparison to the petitioner. 9. As regards argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector has the final word in the appointment of Lambardar, we do not find any merit therein. The ratio of the Division Bench authority in Sarwan Kumar's case (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts appearing in the present case. In the cited case, the Collector had approved the recommendations made by the Naib Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Commissioner in appeal had set aside the appointment of the Lambardar made by the Collector on the concurrent recommendation made by the authorities below. On the other hand, in the present case the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had recommended the name of respondent No. 4 for being appointed as Lambardar. Unlike the recommendation made by the authorities below, the Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. Having regard to the individual merit of each candidate the Commissioner set aside the appointment made by the Collector whose order has also been maintained by the Financial Commissioner. The only extra qualification in the petitioner is that he is the son of the deceased Lambardar. However in all other respects, respondent No. 4 is more meritorious as compared to the petitioner. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. 10. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.