Dismissed

Anand Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Oct 2009LPA/899/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of appointment as Lambardar dismissed. The court upheld lower authorities' finding that while candidates were equal on merit, the respondent possessing hereditary claims under Rule 15 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules was preferentially selected.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Clause X of the letters patent was dismissed. No appointment to the office of Lambardar was granted to the appellant.

Anand Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

#1#

¶2

LPA No.899 of 2009(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No.899 of 2009(O&M)

¶5

Date of Order: 8.10.2009

Anand Kumar

...Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

....Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶12

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

M.M. KUMAR,J

¶16

This appeal filed under Clause X of the letters patent is directed against judgment dated 3.9.2009 passed by learned Single Judge upholding the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 4.8.2009 and also that of the Commissioner dated 24.4.2009 whereby the appellant has not been considered suitable for appointment to the office of Lambardar.

¶17

The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak in its order has found that on merit both the candidates are almost equal but by virtue of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (for brevity “the Rules”), respondent No.4-Sh. Rajender S/o Sh. Pirthi would have edge over the appellant as he has hereditary claims in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules. It is true that ordinarily the choice made by the Collector should not be

¶18

#2#

¶19

LPA No.899 of 2009(O&M)

¶20

interfered with but it is equally true that if from the relevant consideration, the choice of the Collector is found to suffer from a perversity, then there is nothing in law to prevent the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority to interfere with the choice made by the Collector. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector shows that the benefit of hereditary claim available to respondent No.4 was not taken into account, which resulted in interference of the subsequent authorities. Those orders have been upheld by the learned Single Judge.

¶21

After examining all the factors and recording a finding that the appellant as well as respondent No.4 are on equal footing, the benefit of hereditary claim has been granted by all the authorities including the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in the appeal.

¶22

Dismissed.

¶23

( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE

¶24

October 08, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Anand Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Surya Automobiles, G.T.Road, Jalandh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jatinder Singh Vs Pb. St. Warehousing Corp. and Ors.

Kashmir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Others

R.K.Jain Vs UOI etc.

Punjab State Agricultural Mktg. Board Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-I & Anr(Decided Case)

M/S Ralson (India) Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.