Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamjit Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 4 November, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143110-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(110) LPA-2688-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 04.11.2024
Karamjit Singh ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr.V.S.Punia, Mr.Dharmpal Chahal, Mr.VarunMor, Advocates
for the appellant.
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)
1. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
22.08.2024, passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-18754-2022 titled
Karamjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, upholding the order dated
03.09.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Commissioner and order dated
07.07.2022 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby
appointment of respondent No.4, Hardip Singh as Lambardar of Village
Padarth Khera, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, was upheld.
2. The Learned Single Judge relied upon the observations made by
the Financial Commissioner whereby respondent No.4 was found younger in
age in comparison to the present appellant and also having higher educational
qualification of 12th class in contrast to 10th pass qualification of the appellant.
Reliance was, accordingly, placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram & others, 2009 (3) SCC 439 while
dismissing the writ petition and not interfering with the orders of the
Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. The argument that the present
appellant was having experience of working as SarbarahLambardar was
rejected on the ground that giving preference to ainherited claim has been held
to be ultra-vires.
3. We have perused the paperbook. It is apparent that at an initial
point of time, the Collector, vide order dated 04.12.2017 (Annexure P-2)
appointed the present appellant as Lambardar while recording that he had
analyzed the comparative description of the candidates and kept in mind all the
aspects. Solely on the ground of being the grandson of the deceased
Lambardar and the period of experience of acting Lambardar, weighed with
the Collector, which was in contrast with the settled principles of law, which
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143110-DB
(110) LPA-2688-2024 (O&M) -2-
led to the interference by the Commissioner vide order dated 30.03.2018
(Annexure P-3) whereby the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on
the ground that Hardip Singh was 16 years younger and having better
qualification of 12th pass and therefore, the matter had been remanded.
4. It is pertinent to notice that the same officer, thereafter, repeated
the said order on 26.12.2018 in the same manner by noticing that merits of
both the candidates were considered. The aspect of higher qualification and
younger in age was not considered despite the fact that the judgment of the
Apex Court in Mahavir Singh (supra) was binding upon the Collector, while
led to the Commissioner allowing the appeal of Hardip Singh on 03.09.2019
(Annexure P-7)while placing reliance upon the judgment passed in CWP-
7150-2015 titled Satnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, decided on
29.08.2016.It is, in such circumstances, the Financial Commissioner also came
to the conclusion that the Collector erred in appointing the present appellant as
Lambardar which order was held to be rightly set aside the Commissioner.
5. We have also gone through the judgment passed in Satnam Singh
(supra) where there was also difference of 12 years and resultantly, the
younger candidate was preferred. In such circumstances, once the law has
been settled by the Apex Court, the Collector was also bound by the said
observations and apparently, as noticed, it was the same officer exercising his
jurisdiction and thus, he opted for appointing the appellant again, which
frustrated the first remand order.
6. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the Learned Single Judge did not err in any manner
while dismissing the writ petition. Consequently, finding no merit in the
present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
04.11.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
2 of 2
