Rejection of a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Lambardar. The court held that the Collector's administrative decision, based on merit and local knowledge, was not perverse and did not warrant interference.
The impugned orders dated 16.11.2007, 10.6.2011 and 10.8.2011 are maintained and the writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No.18521 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.18521 of 2011 Date of Decision:-31.10.2011
Roshan Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)
The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of death of Goma Ram, the post of Lambardar of village Thanwas, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt.Mahendergarh, had fallen vacant. To begin with, three candidates applied, but subsequently, since Khem Chand did not pursue his claim, so, only two candidates, namely, Roshan Lal son of Prabhata Ram (petitioner) and Amar Singh son of Chander Bhan (respondent No.6) pursued and lodged their respective claims for the indicated post of Lambardar.
Civil Writ Petition No.18521 of 2011 -2-
appeal, which was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division (respondent No.2), by way of impugned order dated 10.6.2011 (Annexure P2).
“After hearing both the parties and their counsel and after perusing the evidence available on the record, it is found that against applicant Roshan Lal, a case was registered under Sections 323, 325 IPC in which he was acquitted. An FIR was registered against him under the Excise Act. Apart from it he has wrongly disclosed his age as 50 years. He is about 60 years of age. His eldest and 1st child date of birth is 11.11.1968 i.e. he is 39 years in age. He does not reside in the village rather at the meat shop in Nangal Chaudhary. The other applicant Amar Singh is the nephew of
Civil Writ Petition No.18521 of 2011 -3-
deceased Lambardar Goma Ram, having knowledge of Lambardari work. He always resides in the village. He is lesser in age to the other candidate Roshan Lal. In comparison to Roshan Lal, Amar Singh enjoys better reputation. Thus, Amar Singh son of Chander Bhan caste Khatik is hereby ordered to be appointed as Harijan Lambardar of village Thanwas to the post which had fallen vacant on account of the death of Goma Ram Lambardar.”
Civil Writ Petition No.18521 of 2011 -4-
unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
31.10.2011 AS
Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Collector's administrative decision in appointing a village Lambardar based on merit assessments.
Whether the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner's claims are perverse or illegal warranting judicial review under Articles 226/227.
Whether the Collector's appointment of a candidate over a more meritorious one based on local knowledge and reputation is maintainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Roshan Lal
The State of Haryana
Amar Singh
Mehender Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
