Jaswant vs State of Haryana and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—dispute in this case is with regard to the appointment of Lambardar of village Jetrawas, Tehsil and District Rewari.

Shorn of unnecessary details, respondent No. 5 was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector on the recommendation of the Assistant Collector

2nd Grade and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade respectively. The petitioner challenged his appointment by way of appeal before the Divisional

Commissioner which was allowed vide order dated 24.03.2011 and the case was remanded back to the Collector by noticing that ""the Sarpanch

of the village has certified that respondent Tej Bhan is working at his shop in Dharuhera village and he is not available till late evening. This fact has

been ignored by the ld. Collector. The selection of a candidate who is not available during day time is not in the interest of the villagers"".

Respondent No. 5 challenged order of remand passed by the Divisional Commissioner by way of revision which has been allowed by the

Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 06.12.2011 observing as under:--

Appointment of lambardar is not supposed to be interfered with until and unless the same is perverse in law and on facts. Choice of District

Collector in the matter is of primary importance and it cannot be interfered with unless there is some patent shortcoming in it or it suffers from some

other infirmity or illegality. In the present case, the Collector after considering the merits of both candidates arrived at the conclusion that the

petitioner is a better candidate and appointed him the lambardar of the village. The Commissioner, Gurgaon vide order dated 24.03.2011 has set

aside the order dated 31.05.2010 mainly on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as lambardar by the Collector, Rewari on the ground that

he is a son of deceased lambardar. I do not agree with the findings of the Commissioner Ambala as the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by

the Collector after considering all the merits of both the candidates.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Financial Commissioner has not looked into the matter which prevailed with the Divisional

Commissioner at the time his appeal was allowed, namely, the question of absentee Lambardar.

On the other hand, respondent No. 5 has submitted that this plea was never raised before the Courts below till the order is passed by the

Divisional Commissioner. It was for the first time that the said plea was raised.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that if it is correct that respondent No. 5 remains absent from the village on account of his work at a shop at

Dharuhera, then he may not be a choice better than the petitioner because an absentee Lambardar cannot be allowed to be appointed because

Lambardar has to perform many duties which are provided in Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1887 (as applicable to the State of

Haryana). If the Lambardar is absent from the village, then he would not be available to the villagers as well as the revenue officers.

In this view of the matter, the order of the Financial Commissioner is set aside and the matter is remanded back to him to consider the question

of absence of respondent No. 5 from the village for his work at the shop at Dharuhera on the basis of the evidence which is available on record

and not only on the basis of a certificate issued by the Sarpanch. If need be, the Financial Commissioner may afford opportunity to the parties to

lead evidence before him in this regard. The parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 07.10.2013.