Harpal Singh vs State of Haryana and others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The process to appoint village Lambardar was initiated on the death of Gian Singh, father of the present petitioner. The petitioner alongwith other applicants submitted their applications. The Collector after considering the recommendations and merits of the applicants appointed petitioner as Lambardar on 18.08.2009. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner accepted the appeal and set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar and appointed respondent No. 4. Against this, the petitioner filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner who has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner. The petitioner, accordingly, has approached this Court through present writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were not justified in interfering with the choice exercised by the Collector. As per the counsel, law is well settled that the choice exercised by the Collector can only be interfered with, if it is found to be arbitrary, illegal or there is any defect of jurisdiction in the exercise of such powers. The counsel has referred to the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. The petitioner points out that the only reason for which the Commissioner has interfered and allowed the appeal was that respondent No. 4 was more meritorious as compared to the petitioner. That choice on the basis of merit was to be exercised by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner has also similarly viewed and found that respondent No. 4 had better merit. Except for better educational qualifications, there is no difference in qualifications. Respondent No. 4 had a criminal case registered against him u/s 364 IPC dated 8.11.1993. He was acquitted of the offence in 2003. Though, this may not be a disqualification now but was to be kept in view as one of the factor while considering the appointment. The outcome of the case has a relevance but the factors which led to acquittal may have called for examination.

In my view the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner are not justified in interfering with the choice exercised by the Collector. The ground to interfere in the order being merit of respondent No. 4 would not pass the test of law laid down by various Courts.

Accordingly, the orders passed by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner can not be sustained and are set aside. Order passed by the Collector is restored. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.