Dismissed

Pala Ram v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Mar 2011CWP/18059/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the dismissal of his appointment appeal as Lambardar, the petitioner argued his substantial social service and literacy. The court held that the appellant being more educated justifies the rejection, finding no perversity. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the order of appointment/dismissal of the appeal is dismissed.

Pala Ram Vs State of Haryana etc. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18059 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 25, 2011

Pala Ram

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

State of Haryana & others

¶7

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

. . .

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶10

PRESENT: - Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶11

. . .

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner was appointed Lambardar for village Rahra, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, vide Order dated 23.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector, Karnal. Respondent No.4 filed appeal which has been accepted by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, vide Order dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure P-2). The

¶14

CWP No.18059 of 2010 [2]

¶15

Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide Order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure P-3) has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Order Annexure P-3 is under challenge.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has rendered substantial social service which fact cannot be ignored. Collector is the appointing authority and his choice should have been respected. Learned counsel further contends that shcool leaving certificate, Annexure P-4 clearly indicates that petitioner is literate.

¶17

I have considered the contentions of learned counsel.

¶18

Commissioner accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.4 essentially on the ground that all other parameters are comparable and nearly similar. Respondent No.4 however is more educated being matriculate. Respondent (petitioner herein) has not placed on record any evidence in regard to his education, although he claims to be 5^th class pass.

¶19

Although Annexure P-4 indicates that petitioner passed 5^th class, however, it remains a fact that respondent is matriculate and therefore, more educated. The appellate authority

¶20

has attached more value to education of the

¶21

CWP No.18059 of 2010 [3]

¶22

respondent and no perversity with the findings can be traced. The impugned orders do not call for interference in extraordinary writ

¶23

jurisdiction.

¶24

The petition is dismissed.

¶25

(AJAI LAMBA)

¶26

March 25, 2011 JUDGE avin

¶27

To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Pala Ram v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pala Ram v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajpal Vs State of Punjab

Sant Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner Ludhiana and Ors.

Bhadur Singh Vs F.C. (APPEALS-1), Pb. & Ors.

Darshan Singh and Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue Pb. and Anr.

Sham Lal Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Madan Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.