Randhir Singh v. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, New Civil & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed in limine
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- U.P. Education Act, 1921
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present:- Mr. P.S. Sikand, Advocate, for the petitioner. PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (Oral) The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure- P-1), passed by the Collector and order dated 23.8.2011 (Annexure-P-17), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the directions have been issued to invite fresh applications for appointment of general category Lambardar of village Patti Afghan, District Kaithal. Brief facts of the case are that on account of death of Karnail Singh, previous Lambardar of the said village, a post of general category Lambardar fell vacant in the village. After obtaining sanction from the competent authority, proclamation was made in the village through Naib Tehsildar. In pursuance to the proclamation, ten persons submitted their applications.
Naib Tehsildar recommended the name of Kamal Kaushal for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Before the Sub Divisional Officer CWP No. 3151 of 2012 -2- (Civil), only two candidates, namely, Kamal Kaushal and Randhir Singh appeared. The SDO (C) also recommended the name of Kamal Kaushal as Lambardar and sent the file to the Collector. The Collector, after appreciating comparative merit of the candidates, appointed Kamal Kaushal as Lambardar of the said village in place of Karnail Singh, deceased Lambardar, vide order dated 2.11.2007. Against that, Randhir Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, vide order dated 23.4.2008 remanded the case to the Collector with a direction to verify the educational qualification of Kamal Kaushal. Thereafter, Kamal Kaushal produced a certificate of Board of Higher Education, Delhi, before the Collector showing that he has passed Senior Secondary Examination.
Regarding the authenticity of the educational as well as age certificates, a report was called for from the Haryana Education Board, as per letters dated 10.6.2008. Thereafter, it was found that the same have been issued by the Board of High Secondary Education, Delhi which is recognised under U.P. Education Act, 1921 and the age was also found to be correct. Similarly, Secretary, Haryana Board of School Education affirmed that the Board of Secondary Education, Delhi is recognised by the Haryana Board of Education, Bhiwani. After hearing the arguments, Collector passed order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure-P-1) appointing Kamal Kaushal as Lambardar of the said village. Randhir Singh preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, vide order dated 20.5.2009 (Annexure-P-2) set aside the order of Collector and appointed Randhir Singh son of Basant Lal, resident of Patti Afghan, District Kaithal as general category Lambardar of the said village in place of Karnail Singh.
Kamal Kaushal/respondent No. 5 filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. After hearing the CWP No. 3151 of 2012 -3- parties, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure-P-3) remanded the case, observing that as per the amended Rules notified on 23.7.2008, a person shall not be less than 21 years of age at the time of making application for the post of Lambardar. Obviously, Kamal Kaushal cannot be appointed as a Lambardar and for that reason, case was remanded by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure-P-3). Against that order, CWP No. 10684 of 2010 was filed by Ranjit Singh/petitioner herein and this Court, vide order dated 20.1.2011 (Annexure-P-18) remanded the case to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated 23.8.2011 (Annexure-P-17) came to a conclusion that the appellant/petitioner is in possession of the panchayat land and he has never been found fit for appointment to the post of Lambardar by the field functionaries and respondent respondent No.
Operative part
3 can also not be appointed due to his age factor. For that reason, the case has been remanded. Hence, this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that there is second round of litigation regarding appointment to the post of Lambardar. The Commissioner has recorded a finding that both the candidates are not fit; for the reason that the petitioner has not been found suitable by the field staff and has also encroached upon the panchayat land, whereas respondent does not fulfil the qualification as per the amended Rules of the Lambardari. For that reason, case has been remanded to the Collector for inviting fresh applications. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of remand dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure-P-3) passed by the Financial CWP No. 3151 of 2012 -4- Commissioner, Haryana. Since, both the candidates were not found suitable, the case has been remanded. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. February 21, 2012 (PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed in limine
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; U.P. Education Act, 1921.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 21 Feb 2012. The bench was PARAMJEET SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.