The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH NAZAR KHA R KHAN CWP-11050-2019 (O&M) M) 5 Date of decision : 12.03.2025 …Petitioner Versus DEPUTY CO Y COMMISSIONER, PATIALA AN A AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARSH BUNGER Present :
Legal Reasoning
vocate Mr. Sherry K. Singla , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. na, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. Ms. Manleen Kaur, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate for respondent No.3. HARSH BUN H BUNGER, J. Prayer in the present writ petition /227 petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constit onstitution of India, is inter alia, for i ature , for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari rari for setting aside the order date 1) er dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by th by the learned Sub-Divisional Mag abha, l Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nabha, District Patia t Patiala and order dated 09.10.2018 y the .2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Depu Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. 2. Briefly, upon demise of Sh. K han, Sh. Khushi Ram @ Khushi Khan, previous Cho s Chowkidar of Village Khanora, T tiala; ora, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala; GURPREET KAUR 2025.04.05 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 5 Page 1 of 5 proceedings were initiated to fill up the afore-said vacancy, wherein the petitioner and respondent No.3 were the candidates. 2.1 It appears that the Naib Tehsildar, Bhadson, recommended the candidature of respondent No.3 for appointment to the post of Chowkidar and the matter was placed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nabha. 2.2 The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nabha vide order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P-1), appointed respondent No.3 as the Chowkidar of Village Khanora. 2.3 An appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) was also dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Patiala vide order dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure P-2). 2.4 3. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the learned authorities below have erred in law and fact in passing the impugned orders, which are non-speaking and perverse. It is further submitted that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.3 as he is better educated being 5th Class pass, whereas, respondent No.3, is an illiterate person. It is further submitted that the petitioner is younger in age than respondent No.3. It is next submitted that respondent No.3 is working as a labourer with the farmers and therefore, will not be able to carry out the duties of the Chowkidar, whereas, the petitioner is available in the village throughout the day as he is doing tailoring work in the village itself. Another submission has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities below have not followed the procedure as envisaged under Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the Punjab Chowkidar Rules, 1965 (for short `the 1965 Rules’). GURPREET KAUR 2025.04.05 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 2 of 5 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that both the authorities below have held in favour of respondent No.3 and that the discretion exercised by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, is fair and just, which does not call for any interference by this
Decision
Court. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition has been made. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the paper-book with their able assistance. 6. Here, it would be apposite to refer to Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the 1965 Rules, which read as under :- “6. The nomination to the post of village watchman or of Daffadar shall be made by the village headman, and where there are more village headmen than one, the opinion of the majority in number (unless there is some special provision to the contrary in the village administration paper) shall prevail. Where a village watchman or daffadar is to be appointed for a beat comprising more than one village, the opinion of the majority in number of the village headmen in such beat shall prevail. 7. The person or persons authorized to nominate to the office of village watchman, or daffadar shall, within 15 days after being required by the Deputy Commissioner, or the officer duly authorized by him in that behalf so to do, nominate a proper person to the vacant post and communicate, the nomination to the Deputy Commissioner. 8. The person so nominated shall, after due enquiry into his age, character and ability, be appointed or rejected at discretion by such Deputy Commissioner, or by some officer authorized by him in that behalf.” 7. Bare reading of Rule 6 of the 1965 Rules, makes it clear that village headman/headmen make(s) nomination to the post of village watchman (Chowkidar) and opinion of the majority of the lambardars of Page 3 of 5 GURPREET KAUR 2025.04.05 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh the village is determining factor for nominating watchman (Chowkidar) if they are more than one. Further, the discretion to appoint Chowkidar vests with the Deputy Commissioner or some officer authorized by him in that behalf after due inquiry into the age, character and ability of the person so nominated. 8. In the present case, the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate (exercising the powers as delegatee of Deputy Commissioner), neither reveals that opinion of the village headman/headmen (Lambardar/s) was sought nor there is reference to any special provision in the village administration paper, so as to appoint respondent No.3 as Chowkidar. Thus, it is clear that Rule 6 of the 1965 Rules has not been complied with by the authorities. It is also observed that once the Sub Divisional Magistrate, had passed the order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) by exercising the powers as delegatee of Deputy Commissioner, then how an appeal filed by petitioner was entertained and decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala; vide its order dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure P-2). 8.1 Accordingly, the impugned order(s)are held to be not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nabha, District Patiala and also the order dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Patiala are set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Patiala to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the 1965 Rules. 9.1 Parties are directed to appear before the learned Deputy GURPREET KAUR 2025.04.05 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 4 of 5 Commissioner, Patiala on 24.04.2025 or any other date as may be fixed by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. 10. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. March 12, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.04.05 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Page 5 of 5