CHARNAMAT SINGH Vs. BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under section 13 of the Punjab land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar whereby the Commissioner accepted the appeal of the respondent (Bahadur Singh) filed before him against the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the District Collector, Nawanshahr.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the death of previous lambardar of village Garh Padhana, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr, the process to fill up the vacancy, so caused, was started. Proclamation was made in the village inviting applications from the interested candidates. In response, ten applications including that of the appellant and the respondent were received. After completing the initial formalities, Naib Tehsildar Nawanshahr recommended the name of Charnamat Singh (appellant) to the Tehsildar, Nawanshahr who endorsed this recommendation to the SDM Nawanshahr. The SDM Nawanshahr, however, recommended the name of the respondent, Bahadur Singh to the District Collector. Ultimately, after hearing the candidates and examining their comparative merits the District Collector, Nawanshahr appointed Sh. Charnamat Singh as lambardar of the village vide order dated 10.6.2003.

(3.) IN this case counsel for both the parties have submitted their written arguments and have also advanced their oral arguments. Assailing the order of the Commissioner, Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Commissioner has erroneously interfered and upset the choice of the Collector without pointing out any illegality of perversity in the selection made by the appointing authority. The counsel has stressed that after completing necessary formalities, Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar Nawanshahr recommended the name of the appellant. Concurring with their recommendation, the District Collector after examining the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates appointed the present appellant Charnamat Singh as lambardar of the village. The counsel has submitted that the appellant is matriculate, has sufficient holding i.e. 64 kanals in village Garh Padhana itself. The Collector also considered that appellant is an ex-Army person having retired as Havaldar and served the nation for 20 years and fought 3 wars for the country i.e. 1962 war, 1965 war and 1971 war and has won as many as 7 medals. The counsel maintained that in Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act it has been categorically provided that while making the appointment of lambardar, the most important factor to be considered is the "service rendered to the State and the Nation". In support of this contention, the counsel has drawn my attention to the ruling as laid down in the case 'Jhalman v. Naranjan Dass', 2004(3) RCR(Civil) 523 (FCP) in ROR No. 265 of 2003. The counsel has submitted that the Commissioner has failed to appreciate the appellant being an ex-army person who is a highly disciplined and distinguished ex-army person and has won 7 gallantry awards. The counsel has further argued that his client is quite hale and hearty and is quite fit to discharge the duties of lambardar. The difference of age is not too huge to discard the appellant on the basis of age only. The counsel has strongly asserted that the Commissioner has committed a grave error while making the appointment and usurping the powers of the Collector which is not within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and it is the District Collector who is the competent authority. Once the District Collector has made the appointment after considering the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the Commissioner while exercising the power of the appellant jurisdiction, cannot interfere unless and until a serious perversity is committed by the Collector. The Commissioner is not supposed to act at whims and fancies of the unsuccessful candidates whose candidature has been rejected by the Collector after considering each and every aspect of the matter. This question has been considered at depth by the Division Benches of our own Hon'ble High Court in Sardul Singh v. Financial Commissioner Punjab, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 448 : 2000(2) PLJ 469. Thus as per ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, it is now quite well settled that in the matter of appointment of lambardar the choice of the Collector should not be interfered with unless the same is patently perverse and in gross violation of the rules. In the present case the Commissioner has nowhere pointed out any illegality or perversity in the order of Collector. The counsel, therefore, has prayed that the order passed by the Commissioner is totally without jurisdiction and as such is liable to be set aside.