SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 15.7.2008 (Annexure -P. 1) passed by the District Collector, Kaithal (respondent No. 3), the order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure -P.2) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala (respondent No. 2) and the order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure -P.3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) RAN Singh, Lambardar of Village Khanauda, Tehsil and District Kaithal died. On account of his death, the post of Lambardar fell vacant. Applications were invited from persons interested through proclamation conducted in the village by the Chowkidar. Several persons applied for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. The Tehsildar, Kaithal recommended the name of Jaipal (respondent No. 4) to be suitable for appointment as Lambardar. The District Collector after considering the merits of the candidates vide order dated 15.7.2008 (Annexure -P. l) also found respondent No. 4 to be suitable for appointment as Lambardar and accordingly issued Sanad Lambardari in his favour. The petitioner aggrieved against the decision of the District Collector filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division (respondent No. 2) who vide order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure -P.2) dismissed the same. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana who vide his order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure -P,3) also dismissed the same. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the record. It may be noticed that all the revenue authorities including the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade/Tehsildar, Kaithal, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade/SDM (Civil), Kaithal, the District Collector (Kaithal) (respondent No. 3), the Commissioner, Ambala Division (respondent No. 2) and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No. 1) have found Jaipal (respondent No. 4) to be more suitable for appointment as Lambardar. The appointment of Lambardar is an administrative act and primarily prerogative of the District Collector and his choice is not to be lightly undone until and unless there is a gross irregularity, perversity or patent error in an order appointing a Lambardar which would warrant the order that has been passed to be nullified. There is no gross irregularity, perversity or patent error in the order appointing Jaipal (respondent No. 4) as Lambardar. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is more meritorious, it may be noticed that this Court is not to sit in appeal over the findings reached at by the revenue authorities in the matter of choice and appointment of Lambardar and substitute its own decision.