Dismissed

Angrej Singh v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jul 2012CWP/10465/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged appointment of respondent No.4 as village Lambardar. Petitioner failed to show special merit for his own appointment. Court found respondent No.4 resided in revenue estate adjacent to village and held appointment of respondent No.4 order against petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar upheld; no interference with orders of appellate authorities.

Angrej Singh Vs State of Haryana etc. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.10465 of 2012 Date of Decision: July 24, 2012

Angrej Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Mr.Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The post of Lambardar in village Brass, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal fell vacant on death of Nakli Ram Lambardar. The process to appoint new Lambardar was initiated. Recommendations of Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade and Assistant Collector Ist Grade were accordingly forwarded. Finally, Collector appointed respondent No.4 as village Lambardar on 26.10.2010. As per the petitioner, the Collector appointed respondent No.4 ignoring his meritorious candidature in violation of the well settled principle of law. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector on 12.5.2011. The petitioner preferred revision against the same, which was dismissed without considering the real aspect of the matter. Petitioner accordingly has filed this petition to impugn the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar.

¶17

As per the petitioner, respondent No.4 does not belong to the village where the Lambardar was to be appointed. This aspect

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No.10465 of 2012 :2:

¶19

was considered by the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner has noticed that respondent No.4 residents in Prem Khera and can be appointed as Lambardar of the village as both the villages form part of same revenue estate of which Lambardar is to be appointed. Otherwise also, the petitioner could not show any special merit for which he was to be appointed. I am not inclined to interfere in the orders passed by the authorities.

¶20

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

July 24, 2012 ramesh

¶22

( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

Angrej Singh v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angrej Singh 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

Gurcharan Singh etc. Vs State of Pb. etc.

Geeta Devi Vs Municipal Corporation Bathinda and Ors.

Naib Singh Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Jatinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sahab Singh Vs Commissioner Patiala Divn. & Ors.

Shamsher Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.