JAIBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question involved in this case is as to whether the Divisional Commissioner, in appeal, can appoint a Lambardar for the first time if the Collector had not appointed any candidate as Lambardar and remanded the case back to the recommendatory authorities for calling the applications afresh?

(2.) In brief, the office of Lambardar of Scheduled Caste category of village Ghanghala, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani fell vacant on account of the death of Jethu Ram Lambardar. The process to fill up the vacancy was initiated by way of Munadi/proclamation, after receiving permission from the Collector, Bhiwani. Three applications were received, within the prescribed period, of Jaibir Singh, Rajesh Kumar and Munshi Ram. After the verification of their antecedents from the local police station, Naksha Lambardari was called from the Halqa Patwari. During the proceedings, one of the candidates, namely, Munshi Ram withdrew his candidature in favour of Rajesh Kumar and hence, only two candidates remained in the contest. The Tehsildar recommended the name of Rajesh Kumar and forwarded the file to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), who also recommended the name of Rajesh Kumar to the Collector for consideration. The Collector was not satisfied about the suitability of both the candidates for appointment to the post of Lambardar and, thus, did not appoint anyone and remanded the case back to the Tehsildar, Siwani with a direction to get the munadi done in the village for seeking fresh applications and to recommend the names of eligible candidates through Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Siwani. This order of the Collector dated 05.09.2011 was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner by way of Executive Revision No. 9121 of 2011 by Rajesh Kumar and by way of Executive Revision No. 9192 of 2011 by Jaibir Singh. The Divisional Commissioner, vide his order dated 18.11.2011, set aside the remand order of the Collector dated 05.09.2011 and appointed Rajesh Kumar as Lambardar. The order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Divisional Commissioner was further challenged by Jaibir Singh but without success as his revision was dismissed on 28.10.2013. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to appoint respondent No. 4 as Lambardar, as the Divisional Commissioner is not the appointing authority. It is submitted that at the most, if the Divisional Commissioner was not satisfied with the remand order, he should have set aside the order of remand passed by the Collector and could have directed him to re-consider the applicants for the purpose of appointment as Lambardar, if he was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Collector in his remand order.