Allowed

Gajraj Singh v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Nov 2014CWP/10195/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order remanding a Lambardar appointment case. The Court held the remand order was unsustainable as the Collector had correctly considered factors including candidate ages, upholding the petitioner's appointment consistent with judicial precedents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Financial Commissioner set aside; order of Collector restored; petitioner allowed to continue as Lambardar.

Gajraj Singh Vs Financial Commissione… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 10195 of 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 10195 of 2014

¶5

Date of decision : 12.11.2014

Gajraj Singh

....Petitioner

V/s

Financial Commissioner, Haryana & ors.

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶12

Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

¶15

RAJAN GUPTA J.

¶16

Instant petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order, Annexure P3 dated 10.01.2014 whereby case was remanded to Collector for decision afresh.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. He submits that petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector. Same was upheld by Commissioner. On a revision being preferred by respondent no. 3, Financial Commissioner remanded the case to Collector for decision afresh. According to him, Financial Commissioner has committed a grave error while initiating the process afresh. Impugned order is unsustainable, thus, deserves to be set-aside.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has vehemently opposed the plea. According to him, age of the candidate is a relevant factor. He has relied upon judgment of the apex court reported as Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram & ors. 2009(1) RCR (Civil) AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.14 13:53I attest to the accuracy and 757 to contend that younger candidate would be more suitable for authenticity of this document

¶19

CWP No. 10195 of 2014

¶20

¶21

the job of Lambardar. Collector erred in ignoring this aspect.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

Brief factual background of the case is that after death of Lambardar of village Raliawas, District Rewari process for fresh appointment was initiated. In response to proclamation, four candidates applied for the post, two of whom withdrew. Two candidates i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 3 remained in the fray. After considering relative merit, Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar vide order his dated 19.09.2012. Aggrieved, respondent no. 3 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. Same was, however, dismissed on 26.09.2013. Dis-satisfied, he filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner who vide his order dated 10.01.2014 remanded the matter to Collector for decision afresh. Aggrieved, present petition has been filed.

¶24

I am of the considered view that order passed by Financial Commissioner is unsustainable. It is evident that petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector vide order dated 19.09.2012. Appointment of petitioner was upheld by Commissioner. In my considered view, Collector has considered all the relevant factors while appointing petitioner as Lambardar. Petitioner is not an aged person who is incapable of performing his duties. Keeping in view all factors including age, I am of the considered view that Collector arrived at the right conclusion. Order is in conformity with the ratio of judgment in Mahavir Singh’s case (supra), thus calls for no interference. Impugned order Annexure P3 is set-aside and order Annexure P1 passed by

¶25

AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.14 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

CWP No. 10195 of 2014

¶27

¶28

Collector is hereby restored. Petitioner would be allowed to continue as Lambardar of the village.

¶29

Petition is allowed in these terms.

¶30

November 12, 2014 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE

¶31

To be referred to Reporter (Yes/No)

¶32

AJAY KUMAR 2014.11.14 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Gajraj Singh v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajraj Singh v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anup Singh Vs Sham Lal and Others

Sadhu Ram Vs Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and Ors.

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

Ram Kishan etc. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs the Deputy Collector & Ors.

M/S. K.D.Sales Corp. Vs Special Secretary Coop. Pb Mini Secretariat Chd & Ors.