SUBASH CHAND Vs. MILKHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISTRICT Collector, Ambala, vide his order dated 20.5.1998 appointed Shri Subash Chand, appellant as Lambardar of Village Subhri, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala. Aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, Sh. Milkha Singh respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, who vide his order dated 15.9.1998 accepted the appeal, set aside the order dated 20.5.1998 of District Collector, Ambala and appointed Milkha Singh, respondent as the Lambardar of village Subhri. Subash Chand has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and Assistant Collector Ist Grade recommended to the District Collector that Subash Chand, appellant should be appointed as the lambardar. The District Collector vide his order dated 20.5.1998 appointed the appellant as lambardar. He said that the order of the Collector should not be disturbed unless there is any perversity or illegality in the order. In this case there is no such perversity and therefore Commissioner has erred in appointing the respondent as the Lambardar. In this connection he cited ruling 1998(1) RCR 628. He said that an FIR had been registered against Sh. Milkha Singh for theft of electricity. Moreover, land holding of Sh. Milkha Singh is less than that of the appellant. He said that the appellant is a son of deceased lambardar and he is a better candidate as compared to the respondent and therefore he should be appointed as the lambardar.

(3.) I have studied the case file and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. A persual of the file shows that the Naib Tehsildar without comparing the relative merits of both the candidates has recommended the name of Subash Chand for appointment as lambardar of Village Surbhi. S.D.O. (Civil) has also without going into the merits of both the persons agreed with the report of Naib Tehsildar, Barara. In his report he has not even referred to the important fact that Milkha Singh is an Ex- serviceman, who has put in 21 years of service in the Army. The District Collector agreeing with the report of SDO (Civil) has appointed Subash Chand as the lambardar on the ground that 21 persons have supported the candidature of Subash Chand and only 5 persons have recommended the candidature of Milkha Singh. The Divisional Commissioner for the first time has compared the relative merits of both the candidates and has given clear finding in respect of age, education, land holding, relationship with the deceased lambardar and service in the Army. He has found that Milkha Singh had an edge over Subash Chand, when their age, education, land holdings and status as Ex-serviceman is considered. He found that Subash Chand has an edge only on one point that he is a son of the deceased lambardar. The Punjab Land Revenue Rules specify the matters that have to the considered in the appointment of lambardar. The Lambardar must have property in the estate to secure the recovery of land revenue, service rendered to the State by himself or by his family, his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness etc. have to be considered. Hereditary claim is one of the matters which should also be considered. It is nowhere stated that appointment of lambardar would be made on the basis of number of witnesses produced in favour of every candidate. The Collector has given importance to this aspect. In fact much weightage should not be given to this fact; appointment of lambardar should be made keeping in view the relatve merits of the candidates and not the number of witnesses produced in their favour. This is not a post of election. The record shows that Milkha Singh has served in the Army for 21 years and was also awarded a degree by the Armed forces, which is equivalent to Graduation. He has also got a Security Training certificate, since he has been trained in fire fighting and use of fire fighting appliances. His certificate of service shows that he has served the Army in various theatres of operation and has been awarded many medals. His character has been shown as exemplary. On considering relative merits of both the candidates I entirely agree with the Commissioner that Milkha Singh is a better candidate suited for the post of lambardar. Hence the appeal is dismissed. To be communicated. Appeal dismissed.