RAM SINGH Vs. KISHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition for setting aside the order dated 18.7.1997 and 23.10.1996 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division and the Collector, Bhiwani, respectively. Facts of the case are that in view of proclamation inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up a vacancy of Lambardar caused on account of demise of the then Lambardar of village Khaparawas (Tosham), four candidates namely Ram Singh, Harpal, Kishori Lal and Umed Singh applied for the post. The Assistant Commissioner, IInd Grade and Assistant Commissioner Ist Grade, Tosham recommended the name of Kishori Lal for appointment as Lambardar. Collector, Bhiwani after going through the record and hearing both the parties found Sh. Kishori Lal being younger in age, healthier, having knowledge of lambardari being son of the deceased lambardar, a better candidate as compared to others and appointed him Lambardar of the village vide order dated 23.10.1996. Harpal and the present petitioner Ram Singh filed two appeals before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar who vide his single order dated 18.7.1997 finding all the three candidates equally good for being considered for the post and finding no overwhelming qualification in favour of any of them, upheld the Collector's order and dismissed the appeals. Petitioner has now preferred the present revision petition for setting aside the orders of lower court before this Court.

(2.) I have heard both the parties and gone through the record. There are three posts of Lambardar in the village of which one is reserved for Scheduled Caste and another for Backward Class. The present lambardari pertains to General Category. Counsel for the petitioner contended that if Kishori Lal who belongs to Backward Class is appointed, there will be no representation to General Category which is ultra vires of the Constitution of India. He further contended that respondent has been appointed only on the ground of hereditary claim because his father was Lambardar. Counsel for the respondent pleaded that according to 1991 PLJ 781 Kishori Lal was not appointed as Lambardar and his hereditary claim was ignored. He is the son of the deceased Lambardar. He is educated upto 9th class and owns 6 acres of land and 2 'pucca' houses. He has also undergone family planning operation and has been taken part in social activities and also has experience of lambardari and is a better candidate. According to 1989 PLJ 567 it has been stated if there is no material defect in the orders of learned Commissioner and the Collector, the healthy convention is that the choice of Collector in the selection of Lambardar should be respected. Contention of the petitioner that there is violation of the Constitution because all those posts of Lambardar belong to the reserved category, is not valid. This post was of General Category for which candidates from all categories can apply. A person appointed as Lambardar should be trustworthy, educated, should have good character, ability and influence in the locality and who could maintain the dignity of the office of Lambardar. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the orders of lower Court. I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of Commissioner and Collector. This revision petition which is devoid of force fails and the same is rejected. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.