Balwan Singh vs Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others

The post of SC Lambardar of village Chhilarki fell vacant on

account of death of Hari Singh Lambardar. After the proclamation, six

applications were received to fill up the vacancy out of which four

candidates withdrew their applications and only two candidates left in the

contest, namely, the petitioner-Balwan Singh and

respondent No.4-Raghbir. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Pataudi

made recommendation in favour of the petitioner on 9.4.2008. The

Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gurgaon, agreeing with the

recommendation of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Pataudi forwarded

the case to the District Collector, Gurgaon on 24.7.2008. The District

Collector, Gurgaon appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 25.11.2008.

The said order was challenged by respondent No.4 before the

Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, who vide his order dated

5.11.2009 set aside the order of the District Collector, Gurgaon and

remanded the matter back to him with the direction to enquire into the fact

as to whether the petitioner is a resident of village Chhilarki or of Garhi

Harsaru. The District Collector, Gurgaon, after obtaining the report, again

appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 5.7.2011, which was challenged

by respondent No.4 in appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon

Division, Gurgaon, who vide his order dated 4.4.2012 set aside the said

order and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The petitioner

challenged the said order dated 4.4.2012 by way of ROR No.437 of 2001-

12 before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed on

10.9.2014. The petitioner has thus, challenged the order of the

Commissioner and Financial Commissioner in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

Collector, after enquiry, had found that the petitioner is the resident of

village Chhilarki and was suitable for the post of Lambardar being more

educated, younger in age and has done cases of family planning. It is

further submitted that the choice of the Collector has to be respected and

should not be reversed until and unless there is a perversity in his order. It

is further submitted that the appellate and revisional authorities have

non-suited the petitioner only on the ground that he has been found

residing in village Chhilarki, of which the Lambardari is in question, from

the last 5-6 months which is not a disqualification.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that the character of the petitioner has not been found to be

above board by the appellate and revisional authorities as not only it has

been found that he had tried to prepare documents for the purpose of

showing his residence at village Chhilarki, though he is a permanent

resident of Garhi Harsaru but also he wrongly gave his age before the

recommending authorities which is borne out from the record. It is also

submitted that the appellate authority had found perversity in the order of

the Collector and set it aside, therefore, the impugned orders do not call

for any interference.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

Lambardari in question is governed by Rule 19B of the

Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1909 [for short ''the Rules] as

it pertains to the Scheduled Castes candidate. It is mentioned in the Rule

19B of the Rules that in appointing the Headman, regard shall be had also

to the character of the candidate which would reflect from his work and

conduct. Respondent No.4 raised a question about the residence of the

petitioner in village Chhilarki, Tehsil Pataudi as according to him the

petitioner was the resident of Garhi Harsaru and was not entitled to apply

for the post of Lambardar of Village Chhilarki. The petitioner had

applied for the post of Lambardar of Village Chhilarki on 23.05.2007. At

that time, he was the resident of Village Garhi Harsaru. He had applied

for a ration card in Food & Supplies Department on 10.1.1999 showing

his residence at Village Garhi Harsaru but in order to be appointed as

Lambardar, Chhilarki he moved an application to cancel his ration card

and made a request to prepare a new ration card showing his address of

Village Chhilarki, which was issued on 08.06.2007 after the date of

submission of his application for the post of Lambardar. It is also on

record that his voter identity card, showing his residence in Village

Chhilarki, was issued to him on 31.08.2007 after the application was filed

on 23.5.2007 and in the said identity card his age has been shown as on

1.1.2007 as 52 years whereas he has made the statement before the AC 2nd

Grade on 5.12.2007 claiming himself to be 49 years of age. Even the

Sarpanch of Village Garhi Harsaru has also submitted that the petitioner is

the resident of Village Garhi Harsaru and it has been found that the

petitioner had just started living in Village Chhilarki from the last 5-6

months for the purpose of submitting his application for the post of

Lambardar. The Court has also found that in the voter list of Garhi

Harsaru of the year 2010, meant for the election of the Panchayat,

Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad, the name of the petitioner has been

shown at Sr. No.148 and his voter identity card bearing Sr. No. HVV

3264538. The said voter list was based on the voter list of Vidhan Sabha

which was published on 22.1.2009. The new voter card was issued on

31.8.2007 bearing Sr. No. SDC2191492. The Court has opined that the

petitioner has been creating documents in order to show that he is the

resident of Village Chhilarki. These facts have prevailed upon the

appellate Court to opine about the conduct of the petitioner and also

recorded that the order of the Collector is perverse because he did not

notice these facts, which are on record, in his order to the detriment of the

interest of respondent No.4. The Financial Commissioner also observed

that the petitioner got his name deleted from the voter list of Village Garhi

Harsaru on 7.3.2011 and was thus having his vote in Village Garhi

Harsaru at the time of his appointment on 25.11.2008. It was also found

that the application for getting ration card of Village Chhilarki was made

on 8.6.2007 i.e. much after submission of the application for the post of

Lambardar. It was also observed that the Collector did not take this

aspect into his consideration in spite of the specific observation made by

the Commissioner in his remand order dated 5.11.2009 in order to verify

the residence of the petitioner.

Thus, in my considered opinion, the order of the Collector

has rightly been set aside by the Commissioner and his order has been

rightly upheld by the Financial Commissioner because there was

perversity in the order of the Collector in the appointment of the petitioner

as Lambardar, whose conduct was not above board reflecting adversely

upon his character.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the

present petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.