BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner in remanding the case back of appointment of petitioner as Lambardar for reconsideration, the petitioner has filed this petition to impugn the said order. The facts in brief are that one Dharam Pal, Lambardar of village Gajjiwas expired on 7.1.2003. In response to 'Munadi' done for the appointment of Lambardar in place of deceased Dharam Pal, petitioner filed an application before Sub Divisional Officer. Respondents No. 5 and 6 also submitted their applications for the said appointment. Tehsildar recommended the name of Ram Avtar, respondent No. 6 to the Sub Divisional Officer, who after verification of the merits and hearing the candidates concerned recommended the name of the petitioner to the Collector (Respondent No. 3), vide his order dated 10.5.2005 (Annexure P-1). Respondent No. 3 accepted the recommendation of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of village Gajjiwas on 30.6.2005. Anil Kumar, respondent No. 5 and Ram Avtar, respondent No. 6 filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 22.6.2006. Respondent No. 3, accordingly issued identity card and certificate of appointment of Lambardar to the petitioner on 9.11.2006. Copy of this has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. Respondents No. 5 and 6 filed the revision against the order passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner. The plea was that some forged or fabricated document had also been filed and on the basis of the same, the impugned order has been passed remanding the case back for re-consideration as far as appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is concerned.

(2.) THE petitioner as well as respondents No. 5 and 6 had hotly contested by pleading their respective cases before the Collector for appointment as Lambardar. The Collector while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar came to the conclusion that Ram Avtar and Anil were residents of village Chandpur whereas the appointment of Lambardar was for village Gajjiwas. This aspect of the matter has also been affirmed by SDO (C ) vide his report dated 10.5.2005. It was also reported that the petitioner, Balwant Singh is resident of village Gajjiwas. He was found to have made better contribution in the family planning and small savings. The petitioner was also member of NCC and NSS. Finding him to be meritorious, he was appointed as Lambardar. The Commissioner also considered the submissions made before him and found the petitioner more suitable for the appointment as compared to respondents No. 5 and 6. The contribution of the petitioner in various field was noticed and so also the fact that respondents No. 5 and 6 are from village Chandpur. The Commissioner, accordingly, upheld the order of appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar. As already noticed, the petitioner has been given a certificate for appointment and identity card. In a revision filed before the Financial Commissioner, he has viewed that availability and accessibility in village is essential for Lambardar to be effective. This observation has perhaps been made in the background of the submission made before him that the petitioner though was resident of Gajjiwas but was running a utensils shop at Rewari and his accessibility would be an issue. The Financial Commissioner accordingly took a view that the allegation and counter allegation in regard to the petitioner being busy with his shop at Rewari and the fact that respondents were resident of different village has not been properly considered. He has accordingly remanded the case back for re-consideration to determine these two aspects with the direction that petitioner and respondents be granted another opportunity of hearing to prove their assertion on these aspects. This order has been impugned through the present writ petition.

(3.) TO support of his submission that accessibility is an issue which is vital and is required to be taken into consideration while appointing the person as a Lambardar, the counsel has drawn my attention to the two judgments of the Financial Commissioner in the cases of Gurdial Singh v. Iqbal Singh 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 283 and Sukh Chain Singh v. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division and others, 2008(2) RCR(Civil) 135. The counsel would also refer to cases of Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR(Civil) 28 and Gurlal Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 792, to urge that as a general rule, choice of a Collector is final, except where the order discloses a lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact so palpable, as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The contention of the counsel is that the manner in which merits and demerits of the petitioner and the respondents was discussed ignoring the accessibility aspect would make the order passed by the Collector to suffer from the vice of perversity.