JUDGMENT
Nirmal Yadav, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.3.2004, Annexure P-4 of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana and the order dated 29.4.2003, Annexure P-2 of the Collector, Kaithal, appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of village Landaheri, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Sarwan Singh, father of the petitioner, on account of his old age resigned from the post of Lambardar. The Collector vide order dated 14.8.1995, appointed petitioner as Sarbrah Lambardar to perform the duties of a Lambardar, as a stop-gap arrangement. Petitioner also applied for the post of Lambardar along with respondent No. 4 and few others. Tehsildar, Guhla, after verifying the antecedents of the candidates submitted his report and made recommendation for appointment of petitioner as Lambardar. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 recommended the name of Harbans Singh for appointment as Lambardar. Petitioner challenged the order of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla, before the Collector, on the ground that his candidature was better than respondent No. 4 as he had already worked as Sarbrah Lambardar for 9 to 10 years during the life time of his father Sarwan Singh, who was Lambardar of the Village. He owns 24 kanals of land in his own name besides 20 acres of land owned by his father. He had deposited Rs. 15,000/- for a fixed term under Small Savings Scheme and had also purchased National Saving Certificates worth Rs. 10,000/-. He had also donated an amount of Rs. 2,500/- in a kar sewa for a bridge over the river. His mother Smt. Shanti Devi is a Member of the Rural Education Society. He himself is also taking part in several activities in the village relating to common cause.
3. On the other hand, it was pleaded by respondent No. 4 that he is Matriculate, whereas petitioner is under-matric. According to him, Sarpanch, Members of Panchayat and other respectable of the village had got recorded statements in his favour. He had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under Small Savings Scheme and had also given 15 cases under the Family Planning Programme. He is also Chairman of Rural Education Society. He pointed out that Hakam Singh petitioner was in illegal possession of panchayat land.
4. After making comparative study of both the candidates, the Collector found respondent No. 4 to be more suitable. However, on appeal, the Commissioner reserved the order of the Collector on the ground that the petitioner had acted as Sarbrah Lambardar for a period of more than seven years and during that period no complaint was received against his work. He further observed that respondent No. 4 believes in party faction, therefore, it would not be in the public interest to appoint him as Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner after taking into consideration the comparative merits and de-merits of both the candidates found that respondent Harbans Singh had a clear and distinct edge over the petitioner as regard the appointment of a Lambardar.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that me Financial Commissioner has ignored the merits of the petitioner and de-merits of respondent No. 4. Petitioner is an experienced person as he has worked as Sarbrah Lambardar with his father during his old age. He further pointed out that as per report of Tehsildar, respondent Harbans Singh indulges in groupism and party – faction. The respectable of the village also do not want him to be appointed as a Lambardar.
6. On careful consideration of the submissions of both the parties and the facts on record and also considering the merits and de-merits of both the candidates, we are of the opinion that petitioner has an edge over respondent No. 4. He has an experience of working as Lambardar while he acted as Sarbrah Lambardar for about seven years or may be more than that, during the old age of his father. He has better financial position than respondent No. 4. He is a social worker and is taking part in all the activities for the common cause. As per report of the Tehsildar, respondent No. 4 Harbans Singh indulges in groupism and party-faction. Therefore, petitioner would certainly prove to be better Lambardar than respondent No. 4.
7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders Annexures P-2 dated 29.4.2003 of the Collector, Kaithal and Annexure P-4 dated 12.3.2004 of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, are quashed and the order Annexure P-3 dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar of Village Landaheri, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, is upheld/maintained.