***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) –

C.M. No.8096-LPA of 2025

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 386 days in filing the present appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit and after hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, the application is allowed and delay of 386 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

Main case

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-21264-2024 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of respondent No.7 as a ‘Lambardar’ of Village Rankoli, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that for appointment to the post of ‘Lambardar’ of the Village Rankoli, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri, only two applicants were there which included the appellant herein as well as the respondent No.7 and the learned Collector appointed the respondent No.7 as a ‘Lambardar’ of the concerned village whereas according to the appellant he was more suitable than respondent No.7.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that not only the Revenue Authorities but even the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 17.09.2024, did not appreciate the comparative merits of the appellant with respondent No.7 in a correct perspective. Hence, the appointment of respondent No.7 as a ‘Lambardar’ of Village Rankoli should be set aside and the appellant should be declared more suitable and be appointed as a ‘Lambardar’ of the said Village.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

5. The adjudication of the claim in hand rests with the Revenue Authorities i.e. with regard to the appointment to the post of ‘Lambardar’. There are various considerations which needs to be extended while appointing a ‘Lambardar’ out of the applications received. There is no hard and fast rule that a particular person i.e. younger in age or elder in age or more qualified or less qualified is to be appointed as a ‘Lambardar’. The best choice is the one who can effectively serve as a Lambardar of the village concerned.

6. In the present case at the time when the consideration was made, the record of respondent No.7 was found to be clean, whereas there was an allegation against the present appellant qua which an FIR was also registered, though at a later point of time, he was acquitted in the said FIR. Once, the Authorities concerned have applied their mind and found respondent No.7 to be a better candidate for the post of Lambardar of Village Rankoli, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri, the order which has already been upheld by even the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 17.09.2024, upsetting the same merely on the asking of the appellant only on the ground that he is better suited, cannot be done.

7. Further the comparative merits has already been looked into by the learned Single Judge while passing order dated 17.09.2024 and the reasons have also been given to find respondent No.7 who has been appointed as a ‘Lambardar’ of the concerned village to be a right candidate.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to rebut the findings of learned Single Judge. Once, the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge has not been proved to be perverse either on facts or law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court.

9. Dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Appeal dismissed.

********