JUDGMENT

JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL).-- This appeal has been filed against an order dated 6th September, 2013 passed by learned Single Judge allowing Civil Writ Petition No.22766 of 2011 filed by respondent No.4-Ram Singh. Dispute is with regard to the post of Lambardar in Village Nadhori, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. To fill up the vacancy, the applications were invited and vide order dated 18th September, 2007, appellant-Rajender Kumar was appointed as Lambardar. His appointment was challenged by respondent No.4 before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide order dated 10th November, 2008 (P-2) set aside the appointment of the appellant and in his place appointed Ram Singh-respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The appellant went in revision, which was disposed of by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure R-1). Respondent No.4's appointment as Lambardar was kept intact. However, to conduct inquiry regarding his allegation that the appellant was involved in an excise case, the matter was sent back to the Collector. In terms of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 11.12.2008, the matter was again taken up by the Collector and it was found, as a matter of fact, that the appellant was not involved in a criminal case as alleged by respondent No.4. On account of that, respondent No.4's appointment against the post of Lambardar was set aside and the appellant was appointed as Lambardar vide orders dated 18th June, 2009 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.4 went in appeal, which was dismissed on 08.12.2009 (Annexure P-4). Revision petition filed by him was also dismissed on 19.05.2011 (Annexure P-5).

2. Orders dated 18.06.2009 (Annexure P-3), 08.12.2009 (Annexure P-4) and 19.05.2011 (Annexure P-5) were impugned by respondent No.4 before this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.22766 of 2011, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 6th September, 2013. It was noticed that on merits, respondent No.4 is a better candidate. It was also said that the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. Taking into consideration all the abovesaid facts, the three orders as referred to above, were set aside. Obviously it means that the order passed by the Commissioner appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar on 10.11.2008, automatically stands revived.

3. We have heard counsel for the parties. It is vehemently contended by counsel for the appellant that order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained because when passing that order conduct of respondent No.4 was not noticed in giving false report and affidavit in the Court of Commissioner, Hisar, Division Hisar. Be that as it may, on 13th November, 2013, we have directed the appellant and respondent No.4 to come present in Court. Both are present, we have interacted with them. Respondent No.4 is healthy, smart and more educated. He is a graduate as against qualification of middle pass of the appellant and owns more land measuring 91 kanals and 10 marls as compared to the appellant. During interaction with both the candidates, it also transpired that all the children of respondent No.4 are highly educated, whereas, the maximum education to the credit of any of the children of the appellant is 10+2. When setting aside order impugned in the abovesaid writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:

“After notice, replies have been filed and an affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Fatehabad dated 05.09.2013 in which it was averred that respondent No.4 was involved in criminal case registered vide FIR No.11 dated 07.01.1990, under Section 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of seven days. Since the fine was paid, the sentence was not ordered, but the fact remains that respondent No.4 has been found to be a convicted person under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and could not have been appointed as Lambardar of the village.

In view thereof, the present petition is found to be meritorious and the same is hereby allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.”

4. We are satisfied with the order passed. Learned counsel has failed to show any flaw in the same. It was a case where on merits, as is shown in Annexure P-1, respondent No.4 was a meritorious candidate. By ignoring his qualifications, the appellant was appointed as Lambardar. It has also come on record that the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act and sentenced to pay fine. This fact was not taken into consideration by the revenue authorities. No such disqualification exists against respondent No.4. If a person with clean image is available, he needs to be appointed as Lambardar, a post, which attracts respect in the village.

5. In view of the facts mentioned above, we dismiss this appeal and in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner on 10.11.2008, appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar is upheld.

Appeal dismissed.

********