Rajwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner and respondent No. 3 were applicants for appointment as a Lambardar of Village Gulabewala, District Muktsar. The vacancy occurred on account of death of Baldev Singh, earlier Lambardar. On the basis of recommendation made by Assistant Collector IInd Grade and Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar, after weighing merits and demerits of both the candidates. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the same before the Commissioner, who reversed the order passed by the Collector and accepted his appeal on 10.6.2008. The Financial Commissioner has also upheld the order passed by the Commissioner and, thus, the choice exercised by the Collector has been interfered with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is of young age; he is more qualified; he has an impressive personality; his name was also recommended by the Panchayat and so the Collector had appointed him as Lambardar. The reason for which the Commissioner has interfered in the choice exercised by the Collector is that respondent No. 3 is a mature person and 45 years of age. He owns more land. It is also noticed that respondent No. 3 has worked as Sarbrah Lambardar for 7-8 years. Respondent No. 3 was preferred not only on this count but also on the ground that he has a hereditary claim, which factor has, thus, been taken into consideration. The petitioner was non-suited on the ground that he is 25 years old and not mature.

Whether there would be valid grounds and reasons to interfere in the choice exercised by the Collector, thus is an issue. Same reasons have weighed with the Financial Commissioner to uphold the order passed by the Collector.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has also pressed these two submissions only that respondent No. 3 had worked as a Sarbrah Lambardar for 7-8 years and this factor ought to out weigh other considerations in his favour. Counsel further contends that family of respondent No. 3 had served the community being a Lambardar of the village from the time of his grandfather and hence, the petitioner would have a better claim. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner refers to a case of Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1973 PLJ 676 to say that the hereditary claim is no more to be considered relevant. Even the rule has been amended.

Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are not justified in interfering with the choice exercised by the Collector. It is true that respondent No. 3 had worked as a Sarbrah Lambardar for 7-8 years but that is a circumstance because his father was unable to work being old and weak. He instead got his son appointed as Sarbrah. In fact, if the father of the petitioner was not able to perform his duties, he should have made way for appointment of fit and able person. That is a circumstance, ought not to give any advantage to respondent No. 3, who is already nearly 50 years of age, as he was 45 years old when appointed. 25 years young person rather would have fully matured by now and may deserve a chance. The Collector had duly considered the rival submissions. The Collector had appointed the petitioner as Sarbrah Lambardar. He now has chosen to prefer respondent No. 3. The choice of the Collector, as exercised in favour of the petitioner, could have been interfered with only if it is found to be arbitrary, whimsical or suffering from any such or other illegality.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has placed before me a judgement in the case of Hakam Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, . In this case, the counsel has referred to the observations where the person acting as Sarbrah Lambardar for a period of 7 years was given preference by the Commissioner, while reversing the order passed by the Collector. In this case, this was not the only reason to interfere in the order of the Collector. The person appointed was found to be indulging party faction where the petitioner therein did not give cause of any complaint against him during his tenure as Sarbrah. The petitioner therein was found to be otherwise meritorious. Thus, it was in the fact situation in the said case that the Commissioner has interfered with the choice of the Collector. This is not the position in the present case.

The primary responsibility to appoint the Lambardar is that of the Collector. He, after considering the relevant merits and demerits, had appointed the petitioner. The choice of Collector can be interfered with only if the same is arbitrary or suffering from some illegality. No such illegality is pointed out, for which the Commissioner or Financial Commissioner could have validly interfered with the order passed by the Collector.

The orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner can not be sustained and are set-aside. The order passed by the Collector is restored. The petition is accordingly allowed.