ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Anand Kumar seeks quashing of the order dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Financial Commissioner/Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Haryana (respondent No. 1) and order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No. 2) in pursuance of which the Commissioner (respondent No. 2) has set aside the order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Collector, Panipat (respondent No. 3).

(2.) PIRTHI Singh, the previous Lambardar of Village Namunda died and on his demise the post of Lambardar fell vacant. Proceedings were initiated to fill the post. A proclamation was made in the village and two persons, that is, the petitioner-Anand Kumar and Rajender (respondent No. 4) applied for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. Verification of both the candidates was got done from the Police. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) submitted his report to the Collector Panipat with regard to the verifications carried out by him. The Collector, Panipat (respondent No. 3) after considering the matter found the petitioner as a better candidate for the post of Lambardar and vide order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) he was appointed. Rajender (respondent No. 4) aggrieved against the order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) assailed the same before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No. 2) by way of an appeal. The learned Commissioner (respondent No. 2) in terms of order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2) set aside the order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Collector, Panipat. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (respondent No. 1) who in terms of the impugned order dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure-P.3) dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the choice of the Collector in the consideration process for appointment as Lambardar is normally not to be disturbed or lightly upset unless there is a grave error, illegality or perversity in the order appointing the Lambardar, nevertheless an appeal against the order of the Collector is a continuation of the original proceedings. The Collector in terms of his order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) considered the case of both the candidates for the post of Lambardar. The petitioner, it was observed, was younger in age, inasmuch as, he was 24 years of age whereas respondent No. 4 was 35 years of age. Besides, the petitioner was 12th pass whereas respondent No. 4 was 10th pass. It was observed that importance is to be given to more qualified person. Besides, the petitioner had got deposited Rs. 1.12 crores under the small saving scheme while Rajender (respondent No. 4) got deposited Rs. 95 lakhs. In the circumstances, the Collector while agreeing with the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Samalakha found the petitioner as a better candidate. However, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No. 2) in terms of his order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2) also considered the qualifications and merits and demerits of both the candidates. It was observed that though the Collector had found the petitioner to be more suitable on account of his young age and his higher qualification, however, contribution of both the candidates towards small saving scheme and family planning programme was almost equal. Insofar as the recommendations of the revenue officers were concerned it was observed that the name of Anand Kumar (petitioner) had been recommended by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). However, both the circle revenue officers i.e. Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar had recommended the name of Rajender (respondent No. 4). The comparative merit, it was observed, showed that both the candidates are quite eligible and fulfil all requirements for the post of Lambardar. The Commissioner despite this preferred Rajender (respondent No. 4) for appointment as Lambardar. What weighed with the Commissioner (respondent No. 2) was that Rajender (respondent No. 4) was son of the deceased Lambardar. It was observed that respondent No. 4 possesses sufficient experience of Lambardari work being young and a mature person of 35 years of age. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Rajender (respondent No. 4) was accepted in terms of order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure- P.2). The petitioner aggrieved against the said order of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana who vide order dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure-P.3) found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed the same. The learned Financial Commissioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 799. C.W.P. No. 1155 of 2004, decided on 29.8.2008, wherein it has been observed that where in case of relatively equal merits of rival candidates, the subjective satisfaction of the Collector should not be interfered with. However, in a case where comparative merit of one of the candidates was found to be more meritorious than the one chosen by the Collector, interference at the hands of the appellate/revisional authority as also during the course of judicial review is eminent failing which a discretion that is arbitrarily exercised would defeat the cause of justice. It was observed that the Commissioner had found the respondent No. 4 to be more meritorious and accordingly he was appointed.