JUDGMENT

T.P.S. MANN, J. –

1. Through the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition (CWP No.11448 of 2011) filed by him against the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar of village Girawar, Tehsil Jhajjar.

2. When the post of Lambardar had fallen vacant due to death of Partap Singh Lambardar on 20.2.1992, applications were invited. Pursuant thereto, the appellant and respondent No.4 submitted their applications. Though the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jhajjar recommended the name of the appellant for the post of Lambardar yet the Collector vide order dated 27.10.2009 considered respondent No.4 more eligible than the appellant and, accordingly, appointed the said respondent as Lambardar of the village by observing as follows :-

“I have heard the arguments of counsel for the both the parties and have also carefully perused the documents available on the file of Courts below. Thereafter I have come to the conclusion that Sh. Dilbag Singh has made illegal encroachment on Khasra No.120 Gair Mumkin Rasta which is the ownership of Gram Panchayat and has illegally encroached the common passage. Order dated 30.10.2008 of Asstt. Collector 1st Grade confirmed the same. Despite this candidate Numberdar has been fined for theft of Canal Water and this fine is also due, from which it is clear that above act of Sh. Dilbag Singh are not in public interest. Post of Lambardar is a responsible post and appointing that type of person as Lambardar is not in the interest of public as well as law. Hence by agreeing with the rulings cited by the counsel of Bharat Vir son of Sh. Charan Singh r/o Village Girawar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar, considering him more eligible than other candidate Sh. Dilbag Singh is appointed as Lambardar of Village Girawar in place of deceased Lambardar late Sh. Partap Singh.”

3. The appellant challenged the order of the Collector by filing the appeal which was accepted by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak vide order dated 27.5.2010, which order was, thereafter, challenged by respondent No.4 before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who vide order dated 1.4.2011 upset the same and restored that of the Collector. The appellant then preferred the aforementioned writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 6.7.2011. Hence, the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

4. Though there is delay in refiling as well as in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed miscellaneous applications (C.M. Nos.5979 and 5978 of 2011) for condonation of delay of 18 days in refiling and 13 days in filing the same yet without taking the said fact into consideration, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits and perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been non-suited in the matter of appointment as Lambardar on the ground that he had illegally encroached upon passage said to be owned by the Gram Panchayat and also fined for theft of canal water. However, no material had been brought on record to establish those facts.

6. From the record, it is apparent that the appellant had encroached upon the common land falling under Khasra No.120 which was a street adjoining his house. Though the encroachment stood removed yet it did not behove a person who was seeking appointment as Lambardar of the village to encroach upon Panchayat land. He even allowed his tenant to resort to theft of canal water. Therefore, the credentials of the appellant were not upto the mark so as to allow him to steal march over respondent No.4 in their race for the post of Lambardar.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the post of Lambardar is not hereditary and the fact is that respondent No.4 had been appointed as Lambardar as his uncle was earlier a Lambardar. However, it may be noticed that respondent No.4 had not been appointed as Lambardar for the reason that he was nephew of the earlier Lambardar and on the death of whom the post had fallen vacant. On the other hand, respondent No.4 claimed to have gained experience regarding Lambardari as he had been seeing his uncle working on the said post. The plea of the appellant that the grandfather of the appellant was also a Lambardar previously is neither here nor there as there was no material on the record to show that his grandfather was ever appointed as Lambardar of the village.

8. The comparative merit of the appellant and respondent No.1 had been tabulated by the appellant while filing the writ petition and, accordingly, noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order which reads as follows :-

9. From the above, it is difficult to say that the appellant stood on better footing than respondent No.4 for being appointed as Lambardar of the village. However, respondent No.4 out scored the appellant on account of gaining experience regarding working of the Lambardar from his uncle on account of whose death the post had fallen vacant and applications were invited, pursuant to which the appellant and respondent No.4 had applied.

10. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the findings arrived by the Collector regarding appointment of respondent No.4 were perverse or relevant facts were not taken into consideration or that the decision was based upon extraneous considerations. Therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the choice of the Collector for appointing respondent No.4 as the Lambardar. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner was set aside by the Financial Commissioner by restoring that of the Collector. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner has, thereafter, been upheld by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

11. We do not find any justification to upset the decision of the learned Single Judge.

12. Resultantly, the appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

********