Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Baljit Mann, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.PC Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab Mr.AS Gill, Advocate Permod Kohli, J. The post of Lambardar of Village Dhada, Tehsil and District Jalandhar fell vacant on account of death of one Raj Mal who was CWP No.47 of 2008 (O&M) 2 occupying the post as a Harijan Lambardar. The post was reserved for Harijan community. On the death of the then Lambardar on 6.4.1993 and availability of the vacancy, applications were invited from willing candidates by the Naib Tehsildar, Bhogpur through local proclamation in the village. The petitioner, respondent no.5 and five other candidates submitted their applications. On receipt of the applications, the then Naib Tehsildar, Bhogpur, Sh.Rajinder Singh Loabana recommended the name of the petitioner vide Annexure P-4. The recommendation was considered by the District Collector who remanded the matter to the Naib Tehsildar in a detailed report. After the remand, the Naib Tehsildar vide his fresh report dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure P-5) recommended the name of Hazara Ram, respondent no.5, herein instead of the name of the petitioner. It is alleged that the earlier Naib Tehsildar was transferred and his successor has made this recommendation in favour of respondent no.5. Recommendation of Naib Tehsildar was also endorsed by Tehsildar, Jalandhar-II and the SDM, Jalandhar. District Collector Jalandhar on receipt of the report appointed respondent no.5 as Harijan Lambardar of Village Dhada, Tehsil and District Jalandhar vide his order dated 29.1.2004 (Annexure P-6). Appointment of respondent no. 5 was, however, challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar who accepted the appeal and while setting aside the order of appointment of respondent no.5 appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the said Village vide his order dated 6.1.2005 CWP No.47 of 2008 (O&M) 3 (Annexure P-7). From the order of Commissioner, it appears that the Commissioner was of the opinion that the present petitioner, appellant before him was a young man, higher secondary pass, knows Punjabi and English and also a Diploma Holder in Homeopathy and is practicing Homeopathy doctor in the village. It has also been observed that the petitioner will be available in the village 24 hours. He has also property in the village and cash worth Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDRs. Regarding respondent no.5, it has been observed that he runs auto-rickshaw and is a heart patient. Though respondent no.5 denied that he plies auto-rickshaw, however, the Commissioner observed that the RC of Auto-rickshaw is in the name of respondent no.5 and he has already suffered two heart attacks. The appellant, being the best educated person was ordered to be appointed as Lambardar. Order passed by the Commissioner was again challenged by respondent no.5 before the Financial Commissioner in revision. The Financial Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure P-9) set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Collector. The Financial Commissioner observed that respondent no.5 was member of the Armed Forces which is an important factor in the appointment of Lambardar. He also observed that the choice of the Collector should not be interfered unless it is perverse. Regarding avocation of respondent no.5, the Financial Commissioner held that there is no clear cut evidence that respondent no.5 is plying auto-rickshaw. Some CWP No.47 of 2008 (O&M) 4 observation has been made regarding his health. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the appointment of respondent no.5 as Lambardar of the said Village and has also sought a direction that after setting aside the appointment of respondent no.5, the petitioner be appointed as Lambardar in his place. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.5 being an auto-rickshaw driver and having suffered two heart attacks is not a fit person to be appointed as Lambardar of the village. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the job of the headman of the village is cumbersome and on account of health conditions of respondent no.5, it is not admissible to appoint him as Lambardar. To the contrary, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is a Homeopathy doctor and remains busy with his private practice in the village and will not be available to the villagers. Besides this, it is also argued that respondent no.5 is an Ex-serviceman and thus a better candidate to perform the duties of Lambardar. Respondent no.5 has denied that he is a heart patient and an auto-rickshaw driver. The petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lakhwinder Singh & Another vs. Sukhwinder Singh & Another, 2007 (1) PLJ 212. In this judgment, a shop-keeper was considered not to be an appropriate person to be appointed as Lambardar as CWP No.47 of 2008 (O&M) 5 he would not be in a position to do the work of Lambardar effectively. A number of judgments have been cited on behalf of respondents to canvass that the choice of the Collector is not to be interfered in regard to the appointment of Village headman. Reference is made to a Division Bench judgment in the cased of Om Parkash vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 690, Jog Dhian vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 658 and Nirbhey Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Haryana, 2008(1) Volume 8 Local Acts Reporter, 1. The dictum of all these judgments is that in the case of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of the Collector must be respected and accepted unless it is perverse. This seems to be a settled proposition of law. Applying the aforesaid ratio of various judgments of this Court, it is to be seen whether the opinion of the Collector suffers from any perversity. The Collector has selected respondent no.5 who admittedly belongs to Harijan community and is an Ex-serviceman. The allegations of the petitioner that respondent no.5 suffers from heart disease have not been established by any documentary and medical evidence. Even if such an allegation is true, merely that a person is a heart patient is not sufficient to deprive him of the appointment unless the ailment is to such an extent that he is unable to perform duty. There is no material on record to infer such a thing. Thus, the allegations against respondent no.5 have not been established. Financial Commissioner has CWP No.47 of 2008 (O&M) 6 concurred with the opinion of the Collector which is not to be interfered lightly, in view of the settled position of law. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 09 .02.2010 MFK