AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CM-13354-CWP-2025
For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Document Annexure R-1 is taken on record.
CWP-3746-2024
1 The dispute between the parties relates to appointment to the post of Chowkidar of village Sahanpur, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.
2 The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar by the Collector vide order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-1).
3 In an appeal preferred by respondent No.4, the order passed by Collector has been annulled vide order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) observing as under :-
“8.From the above detail it is clear that both candidates are equal in education and age but respondent Ishma Ram did not remain present in the village and due to giving wrong information about corona, written against the respondent whereas appellant remains present in the village for Chowkidar work. Apart from this appellant is the son of retired Chowkidar and SDO (Civil)-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade Safidon has recommended his name for appointment as Chowkidar. Appellant become more eligible than the respondent for the post of Chowkidar. In this way the order of the District Collector Jind appears to be faulty.
9.In these circumstances finds merit in the appeal of the appellant, appeal is accepted and the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by District Collector Jind is set aside and appellant Bharat Singh son of Sh. Ram Diya is appointed as Chowkidar of Village Sahanpur Tehsil Safidon in place of retired Chowkidar Ramdiya. Lower court record be sent alongwith certified copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room after its compliance.”
4 Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that the Commissioner has returned a finding that the candidates are equal in education and age, yet the appointment of the petitioner has been annulled.
5 Per contra, counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner during COVID-19 gave wrong information and availed benefits. Commissioner has taken cognizance of the said fact and relied upon the report dated 02.04.2020 (Annexure R-1). The petitioner having been found to be an untrustworthy man was rightly held by the Commissioner to be not worthy of appointment as Chowkidar.
6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
7 In the considered opinion of this Court, so far as the report Annexure R-1 is concerned, the petitioner was never confronted with the same, nor was he given any opportunity to respond thereto. Thus, this Court does not find that the Commissioner should have considered the same to non-suit the petitioner.
8 Once the Commissioner himself found that both the candidates are equal in merit and age, there was no reason for the Commissioner to interfere in the choice made by Collector.
9 In view thereof, this Court finds that the order passed by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, the same is set aside.
10 The order passed by the Collector is accordingly restored.
11 Petition stands disposed off.