Dismissed

Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2015LPA/768/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Letters Patent Appeal regarding appointment of a Lambardar against a reserved SC post, the court held that the appointment of respondent No.4 is valid. It noted the appellant faces trial while respondent was acquitted and reaffirmed that the Collector's choice prevails unless perverse. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed upholding the order of appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar.

Sukhbir Singh Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.768 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 14, 2015

Sukhbir Singh

.....Appellant

versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

¶9

Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

The controversy pertains to appointment of Lambardar against the reserved Post of Scheduled Caste category in village Garhi Mundo, Tehsil and District Yamuna Nagar.

¶16

The Collector - being the Competent Authority appointed respondent No.4 but on an appeal by the appellant, that order was up-set by the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, also upheld that order. However, pursuant to the writ petition filed by respondent No.4, this Court set aside the above-stated orders of the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner and the matter was remitted to the Financial Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The Financial Commissioner then decided in favour of respondent No.4. The said order has been upheld by learned Single Judge.

¶17

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.05 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

LPA No.768 of 2015 (O&M)

¶19

[2]

¶20

It appears that there was a criminal case registered against respondent No.4 under the Gambling Act in which he stood acquitted. As against it, the appellant is facing trial in the case FIR No.180 dated 25.05.2012 under Sections 323, 324, 34, 325 IPC. Even if the appellant has a slight edge over respondent No.4 on comparative merit, it is well settled that choice of the Collector should ordinarily prevail unless found to be tainted with perverse or extraneous considerations. No such case is made out by the appellant.

¶21

No case to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge is made out.

¶22

Dismissed.

¶23

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE July 14, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE

¶24

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.05 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana 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

State of Haryana Vs Saroj Panwar and Ors.

Union of India Vs P.C Gupta & Ors.

Baljinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Prem Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bua Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Surjit Kaur and Ors.