Buta Ram vs Joginder Paul

B.B. Mahajan, F.C.

The instant revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, is directed against the order dated the 6th September,

1983 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide which he rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that a post of Harijan Lambardar was sanctioned in village Kot Sadiq and the applications were invited for

this post. Nine persons applied for the post. The Tehsildar recommended the name of Buta Ram, the present petitioner and the S.D.O. (Civil)

agreed with the report of the Tehsildar. The Collector, Jalandhar, vide his order, dated the 6th November, 1980, appointed the respondent as

Lambardar of the village, finding him superior to the petitioner. It was observed by the Collector, that the petitioner Buta Ram was still working as

Patwari and he may have to remain posted outside the village and may not be able to perform the duties of the Lambardar. Aggrieved by this, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who, after hearing the counsel for the parties and

perusing the record, rejected the same, vide his order dated the 6th September, 1983, which has now been impugned before me.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main ground on which he has been overlooked by the Collector is that he was working

as a Patwari and would, therefore, not be available to perform his duties as Lambardar in the village during the normal working hours. This has

been concurred in by the Commissioner. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the learned Financial Commissioner,

Haryana in 1974 PLJ page 219 in which it was held that the factum of a candidate for appointment as Lambardar being a Government servant and

consequently being obliged to remain absent from the village (especially when he is expected to come back to the village in course of time) should

not be reckoned as a disqualification. He has also referred to the judgment of Shri N. Khosla, learned Financial Commissioner Punjab reported in

1981 PLJ page 29 in which it was held that the fact that a candidate being posted away from the village is relevant but not overwhelming so.

Before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade the judgment of Shri C.D. Kapur, Financial Commissioner Taxation, Punjab reported in 1969 PLJ page

440 and of Shri V.P. Johar, Financial Commissioner, Haryana, reported in 1980 PLJ 239 had been cited by the opposite candidate. Shri C.D

Kapur, Financial Commissioner, Punjab, had held that the duties assigned to the Lambardar, need the presence of a Lambardar during the day so

that he is in a position to discharge these duties efficiently and effectively and the first and foremost consideration which should prevail in making the

fresh appointment of a Lambardar is to select a person who could be available readily to discharge the duties assigned to the office of Lambardar.

Shri V.P. Johar, Financial Commissioner, Haryana had similarly held in 1980 PLJ page 239 that a candidate in Government service should be

appointed Lambardar only if no suitable candidate is available in the village. It is clear from a combined reading of these judgments that while the

fact of a candidate being in Government service is not a disqualification under the Rules, a candidate who would not normally be available in the

village should not normally be preferred and a candidate in Government service who is posted away from the village or is liable to be so posted

should be appointed only if no other suitable person is available. In this case since another suitable person viz. the respondent was available the

Collector rightly preferred him to the petitioner. No illegality in any case has thus been committed in the impugned order which may justify

interference in revision. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Announced.