Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hira Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 3 July, 2024
CWP-21680-2017 -1-
216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-21680-2017
Date of Decision: 3rd July, 2024
Hira Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
*****
HARSH BUNGER J.
1. Petitioner (Hira Singh) has filed the instant writ petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by
the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby
respondent No.4 (Amandeep Singh) was appointed as the Lambardar (S.C.)
of Village Marri Kambo, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. A further prayer
has been made by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.09.2016
(Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby his
appeal bearing ROA No.48 of 2014 against the aforesaid order dated
19.05.2014 (Annexure P-4) was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the previous Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo,
namely Harnam Singh son of Roop Singh, expired on 22.06.1988 and upon
approval of the District Collector, Tarn Taran, proceedings were initiated for
filling up the vacant post of Lambardar (S.C.) of the aforesaid village. After
due proclamation for the aforesaid post of Lambardar (S.C.), three
applications were received, including the applications submitted by the
present petitioner (Hira Singh) and respondent No.4 (Amandeep Singh). The
character of the candidates was got verified from the local police, which was
found to be in order. Lower Revenue Officers, i.e. Tehsildars and Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Patti recommended the name of respondent No.4
(Amandeep Singh) for appointment to the post of Lambardar (S.C.) of
Village Marri Kambo. Thereafter, the matter was put up before the District
Collector, Tarn Taran, who afforded opportunity of hearing to the contesting
parties.
3. As regards the petitioner (Hira Singh), it was observed by the
District Collector, Tarn Taran that he was 39 years of age; a permanent
resident of Village Marri Kambo; belonged to the Scheduled Castes
Community; and having educational qualification upto 10th Standard. It was
also observed that he could read and write Punjabi properly.
3.1. On the other hand, respondent No.4 (Amandeep Singh) was 24
years of age, a permanent resident of Village Marri Kambo and belonged to
the Scheduled Caste Community. He was also equally qualified as the
petitioner, being matriculate, and was found to be capable of reading and
writing Punjabi properly.
4. The learned Collector, Tarn Taran vide order dated 11.01.2012
(Annexure P-1) appointed the present petitioner (Hira Singh) as Lambardar
(S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo.
5. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 11.01.2012
(Annexure P-1) passed by the learned District Collector, Tarn Taran,
Amandeep Singh (respondent No.4) filed an appeal (Revenue Appeal
No.51 of 2012) before the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar, which was
allowed vide order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) and Amandeep Singh
was appointed as the Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo. Relevant
extract of order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) would read as under:-
"6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Ld.
Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record
received in the case & papers brought on the file. The
appellant is 24 years old and 10th pass whereas the respondent
is 39 years old and also 10th pass. However, the respondent is
younger in age and as per the settled law where other things
are equal the candidate younger in the age should be
preferred. Moreover, the appellant has produced a copy of FIR
No.64 U/s 326/324/34 dated 4.9.2004 registered against the
respondent. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is silent on
the fact that why he disagreed with the recommendation of the
lower revenue officers who recommended the name of the
appellant Amandeep Singh. In view of this fact I set aside the
order of the Collector dated 11.1.2012 and appoint appellant
Amandeep Singh s/o Bakshish Singh as lambardar of the
Village Marri Kambo, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran."
6. The aforesaid order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) was
challenged by the present petitioner (Hira Singh) before the Financial
Commissioner, Punjab by filing an appeal (ROA No.48 of 2014), which was
dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure P-5).
7. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner
(Hira Singh) filed the instant writ petition before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Commissioner as well as the learned Financial Commissioner have erred in
appointing respondent No.4 (Amandeep Singh) as the Lambardar (S.C.) of
Village Marri Kambo by ignoring the relevant merits of the petitioner. It is
submitted that the Commissioner has wrongly non-suited the petitioner by
observing that there was an FIR registered against him in the year 2004,
whereas the petitioner had already been acquitted in the said case vide
judgment dated 20.10.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Patti. It is further submitted that the said acquittal of petitioner was
prior to the initiation of proceedings for filling up the vacant post of
Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo, and therefore, the said factor
should not have been made a ground for non-suiting the petitioner. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner is a mature man, sufficiently
educated and the learned Collector, Tarn Taran had appointed him as the
Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo. It is next submitted that the
choice of Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar is not to be
interfered lightly unless there is any illegality or perversity in the order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the learned
Commissioner should not have passed the order, appointing Amandeep
Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar, rather he should have remanded the
case to the Collector, for fresh decision.
8.1 With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3)
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar and impugned order
dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner,
Punjab be set aside; and the petitioner be appointed as Lambardar (S.C.) of
Village Marri Kambo.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has contested
the claim of petitioner by submitting that the Collector, Tarn Taran had
wrongly appointed the petitioner (Hari Singh) as Lambardar (S.C.), that too
without considering the fact that the candidature of Amandeep Singh
(respondent No.4) was recommended by the Lower Revenue Officers, i.e.
Tehsildars and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti, which was required to be
considered by the Collector. It is submitted that respondent No.4 is younger
than the petitioner and as per the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, age of the
candidate is a relevant factor to be considered while making appointment to
the post of Lambardar. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 is also
sufficiently educated inasmuch as that he is equally qualified as that of the
petitioner, i.e. matriculate. It is next submitted that the Commissioner has
passed order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3), appointing respondent No.4
as Lambardar (S.C.), after considering the relative merits and demerits of
petitioner and respondent No.4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4
contends that the petitioner may have been acquitted in case FIR No.64
dated 04.09.2004, registered under Sections 326/324/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, whereas respondent No.4 is a person with clean antecedents,
accordingly order passed by the Commissioner appointing Amandeep Singh
(respondent No.4) as Lambardar (S.C.), and as upheld by the Financial
Commissioner, is not required to be interfered with. It is also submitted that
respondent No.4, after being appointed as Lambardar (S.C.), has been
performing his duties with due diligence, till date.
9.1 With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondent
No.4 prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper book with their able assistance.
11. In the present case, it is not disputed that Lower Revenue
Officers, i.e. Tehsildars as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti,
recommended the name of respondent No.4 for being appointed as
Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo. It is also not disputed that at the
time of passing of order dated 11.01.2012 (Annexure P-1) by the Collector,
Tarn Taran, the petitioner was about 39 years of age and respondent No.4
was 24 years old. So far as the educational qualification of the petitioner and
respondent No.4 is concerned, both are stated to have studied up to
10th Standard. Both of them are the permanent residents of Village Marri
Kambo and belong to the Scheduled Castes Community. It is also not
disputed that petitioner was involved in the aforesaid case FIR No.64 dated
04.09.2004 registered under Sections 326/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
although he was subsequently acquitted vide judgment dated 20.10.2009
(Annexure P-6) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti.
12. From comparison of the relative merits and demerits of the
petitioner as well as respondent No.4, it is borne out that Amandeep Singh
(respondent No.4) had an edge over the petitioner inasmuch as that he is
younger in age than the petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mahavir
Singh Vs. Khiali Ram", 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 757 has held that age of a
candidate is a relevant factor. Furthermore, the candidature of respondent
No.4 was recommended by the Lower Revenue Officers. In "Atma Singh
Vs. the Financial Commissioner, Revenue", Punjab, 2016 (1) L.A.R. 592,
it was held by this Court that although, recommendations of Lower Revenue
Officers are not binding on the Collector, however, due consideration is to
be accorded to such recommendations as they are in a position to assess the
suitability of a candidate. In "Hakam Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner
(Revenue), Punjab" 2016 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 335, it was again held by this
Court that the recommendations made by the Lower Revenue Authorities
may not be binding on the District Collector yet the same would have some
persuasive value. Still further, respondent No.4 is sufficiently educated and
has clean antecedents.
13. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the learned Commissioner should have not passed the order appointing
respondent No.4 as Lambardar, it is observed that a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of "Tak Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue),
Haryana" 1998 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 90 has held as under:-
"... the other contention of the learned counsel that the
Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner had no
jurisdiction to select a village Headman-cum-Lambardar again
cannot be accepted. The Appellate or the Revisional Authority
has a right to pass the same order that can be passed by the
Collector. Thus the selection of village Headman-cum-
Lambardar by the Financial Commissioner cannot be set aside
on that ground ..."
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in
this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The order dated
19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Commissioner,
Jalandhar, as affirmed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab vide
order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure P-5) appointing respondent No.4 as the
Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo, is hereby upheld.
15. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
3rd July, 2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
Apurva JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
