Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20843 = 2026:PHHC:015644-DB
in/and LPA-3591 of 2025
Decided on: 03.02.2026
Present:
Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocate for the appellant.
A. Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Literate candidate – Requirement of -- Appellant is not literate as he has passed only 6th standard -- Once, under the notification dated 02.06.2008 of the Government of Haryana, the Lambardar should be literate and preferably middle pass; the same has to be followed and candidates are to be adjudged accordingly – Respondent No.4 is 9th pass – Appointment of respondent no. 4 cannot be treated as arbitrary, illegal or perverse to the facts or the law.
(Para 5)
B. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 -- Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Preference of Revenue authorities – Choice of Collector -- Choice of Lambardar should be left to the discretion of the authorities -- Tehsildar and the SDM had recommended the case of respondent No.4 for appointment as Lambardar -- Once, the initial preference was given to the respondent No.4 and he was appointed by the Collector same position has been restored by the learned Single Judge, coupled with the fact that no disqualification has been attached with the candidate so appointed as Lambardar -- No interference is called for.
(Para 6)
C. Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Hereditary claim -- Merely that the father and the grandfather of the appellant was Lambardar, the same cannot be a ground to appoint the appellant as Lambardar in case any better candidate suited for the job was available, as no hereditary right exists with the appellant.
(Para 8)
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) --
CM-8826-LPA-2025 and CM-8827-LPA-2025
These are two applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 03 days and 349 days in filing and re-filing the appeal.
Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed and the delay of 03 days and 349 days in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned.
LPA-3591-2025 (O&M)
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in CWP-467-2024 by the learned Single Judge by which, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P-7) remanding the case back to the learned Collector for fresh adjudication has been set aside and appointment of the respondent No.4 – Gian Chand, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, as a Lambardar, has been maintained.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P-7) has been passed by the Financial Commissioner which order is based upon the notification dated 02.06.2008 wherein it has been stipulated that the Lambardar should be literate, which aspect cannot come in the way of appellant for appointment to post in question as the word used therein is “preferably”. Hence, rejecting the claim of appellant qua appointment to post in question on the basis of the said notification is incorrect and the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the said fact in the manner required.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance.
4. It may be noticed that in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, the comparison with regard of the age, educational qualification, landholdings and recommendation qua both candidates has been made by the learned Single Judge. A bare perusal of the above would show that the appellant herein, i.e. Rajesh Kumar is not even literate as he has passed only 6th standard. Once, under the notification dated 02.06.2008 of the Government of Haryana, the Lambardar should be literate and preferably middle pass; the same has to be followed and candidates are to be adjudged accordingly.
5. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the word used is ‘preferably’, is that in case the option of a literate person is available, the said literate person should be preferred and in the present case, the other contender, i.e. respondent No.4 herein, is 9th pass keeping in view the said notification and therefore, the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be treated as arbitrary, illegal or perverse to the facts or the law.
6. Further, choice of Lambardar should be left to the discretion of the authorities concerned. It may be noticed that Tehsildar and the SDM had also recommended the case of respondent No.4 for appointment as Lambardar. Once, the initial preference was given to the respondent No.4 and he was appointed by the Collector same position has been restored by the learned Single Judge, coupled with the fact that no disqualification has been attached with the candidate so appointed as Lambardar, i.e. respondent No.4 has been brought to the notice of this Court hence, no interference is called for.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that father as well as grandfather of the appellant remained as Lambardar and, therefore, the appellant should have been considered as a better candidate.
8. It shall be noted that said argument has not been averred by the appellant in the appeal filed herein, and neither the same was raised before the learned Single Judge and hence, raising an argument at this stage which has not been raised at any earlier stage, the same cannot be dealt with now; even otherwise, merely that the father and the grandfather of the appellant was Lambardar, the same cannot be a ground to appoint the appellant as Lambardar in case any better candidate suited for the job was available, as no hereditary right exists with the appellant.
9. As no perversity has been shown to the existing in the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Appeal dismissed.
********