SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by one Shersingh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the State of Rajasthan and indersingh.

(2.) Non-petitioner No. 1 has not filed any reply, though the learned Deputy Government Advocate has appeared to contest the petition. Non-petitioner No. 2 has filed a reply. The facts which have given rise to the present application are as follows:

(3.) One Lt. Narainsingh was Chaudhari of village 17-Z in Tehsil Ganganagar. After his death in 1947, his son Gurdat Singh, his grandson Jaswantsingh and the petitioner Shersingh were candidates for appointment as Chaudhari in place of Narainsingh. On 21-12-1950, Jaswantsingh, grandson of the deceased, was appointed Chaudhari by the A. C. Ganganagar. The petitioner Shersingh filed an appeal before the Collector Ganganagar. That appeal was allowed on 11-6-1951 (vide Ex. 1) and the petitioner was appointed Chaudhari. It appears from Ex. 2 that Jaswantsingh challenged the petitioner's appointment on the ground of his Illiteracy and participation in criminal activities before the Additional Commissioner, Bikaner, but he was not successful and so he approached the Board of Revenue with a revision application, but, that was also dismissed with the remark that if the villagers were dissatisfied with the petitioner on account of his illiteracy or indulgence in criminal activities, they could take necessary steps for the redress of their grievances. It appears from Ex. P.3 that after this first round of the dispute between the petitioner and Jaswantsingh was over, certain residents of Chak No. 17-Z moved another application through Sardar Indersingh non-petitioner No. 2 for the petitioner's dismissal from Chaudhariship. That matter went up to the Commissioner who held that Shersingh should first be given a warning and if it goes unheeded, then appropriate action about his dismissal might be taken afterwards. Indersingh was not satisfied with this and so an appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan. On 17-11-1953, the learned members of the Board dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, non-petitioner No. 2 moved the Revenue Minister. The Revenue Minister directed an inquiry to be made. It appears that the officers posted in Ganganagar District were changed by this time. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ganganagar made a report (Ex. B) that the petitioner was an old and Illiterate man and so he recommended his removal and appointment of Indersingh in his place. The Commissioner also made a similar report (Ex. A) to the Revenue Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. On 24-9-1954, the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in the Revenue Department wrote to the Commissioner, Bikaner, that he was