Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar v. Ramesh Chander and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Feb 2012LPA/725/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge's order that restored the Collector's appointment of one candidate as Lambardar. The Court held that appellate authorities cannot re-appraise merits to impose their choice unless the Collector's decision is found illegal, perverse, or arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's order which restored the Collector's appointment of the respondent.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Ramesh Chander and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Letters Patent Appeal No. 725 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Letters Patent Appeal No. 725 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14.2.2012

¶4

Rajesh Kumar ..Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ramesh Chander and others

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶9

Present: Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. S.S.Kharb, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶11

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.

¶12

The appellant prays that order dated 16.2.2011 allowing the writ petition, filed by respondent no.1, thereby setting aside order dated 14.9.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Camp at Panipat and dated 2.3.2010 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Department, Chandigarh and restoring order dated 31.1.2007 passed by Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, may be set aside.

¶13

Counsel for the appellant submits that though the Collector appointed respondent no.4 as Lambardar, but his appointment was set aside by Commissioner by holding that the over-all merits of the appellant and respondent no.4 clearly establish that the appellant is a better candidate. The Financial

¶14

Letters Patent Appeal No. 725 of 2011 2

¶15

Commissioner has affirmed this order. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order without referring to the merits of the case, as noticed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. It is argued that as the choice of the Collector was illegal and arbitrary, the Commissioner was empowered, as an appellate court, to examine the matter on merits and determine as to which of the candidates is more suitable for the post of Lambardar.

¶16

Counsel for respondent no.4, on the other hand, submits that as the Collector is the appointing authority, his choice is final till such time as it is found to be perverse, arbitrary, contrary to the rules or made as such by ignoring relevant and material evidence. The Collector appointed respondent No.4 after appraising the merit of candidates. The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to re-appraise the merits and impose his choice. The learned Single Judge has rightly set aside orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and restored the choice of the Collector.

¶17

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶18

The power to appoint a Lambardar vests in a Collector of a district. After receiving recommendations from the Assistant Collector etc. , the Collector considers the evidence adduced by respective candidates, appraises the material on record and after granting an opportunity of hearing to

¶19

Letters Patent Appeal No. 725 of 2011 3

¶20

candidates, appoints the candidate, who, in his opinion, is the most suited for the post of Lambardar. The selection of a Lambardar, based upon a considered appraisal of the material on record is, as a general rule, final but does not prohibit an appellate or a revisional authority from examining whether the choice of the Collector is legal and valid, is not occasioned by an arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion, has taken into consideration the material on record, and is not made in violation of relevant rules. The appellate or revisional authority, however, are not empowered to re-appraise the material on record and impose their choice of the best candidate, without pointing out any illegality or a perverse and arbitrary exercise of discretion, by the Collector.

¶21

A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner reveals that he proceeded to appraise the relative merits of candidates and thereafter held, that in his opinion, the appellant is the best person to be appointed as Lambardar. The Commissioner without recording any finding that the choice of the Collector is illegal, perverse, arbitrary, or made in violation of any rule, proceeded to impose his choice about the better candidate. The Financial Commissioner affirmed this order and, in essence, committed the same error as was committed by the Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that as the choice of the Collector is final and no finding has been recorded that his choice was illegal, perverse, arbitrary or made

¶22

Letters Patent Appeal No. 725 of 2011 4

¶23

in violation of the rules, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose their perceptions of the better candidate.

¶24

We find no error whether of jurisdiction or of law as would require interference in the impugned order. The appeal is,

¶25

consequently, dismissed.

¶26

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

¶27

14.2.2012 VK

¶28

( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) JUDGE

Rajesh Kumar v. Ramesh Chander and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Ramesh Chander and Ors.

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

Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jagdev Singh & Ors. Vs Joint Development Commissioner & Ors.