TEK RAM Vs. HARGIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VISHNU Bhagwan, J This is an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 15.3.1994 of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division who set aside the order dated 5.1.1994 passed by the Collector, Sonepat appointing the petitioner Tek Ram as Lambardar of village Panchi Jatan, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat; this appeal having been accepted restoring the order of Collector by the then Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide order dated 22.9.1994 and on a Civil Writ Petition No. 3227 of 1995 by the respondent Hargian the High Court vide its order dated 8.8.95 directed the parties to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 4.9.95 for deciding the case at an early date preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties as the Financial Commissioner's order dated 22.9.94 is a non-speaking order.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that for appointing a Backward Class Lambardar of village Panchi Jatan, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat and in view of the Mushtri Munadi in the village four candidates viz. Raj Pal, Tek Ram, Hargian and Harphul applied for the post. The Assistant Collector, First Grade, Ganaur recommended Raj Pal. Harphul being absent was proceeded against ex parte by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Sonepat and out of the remaining candidates, he recommended Hargian. The Collector Sonepat finding the petitioner Tek Ram better candidate having clean image/character, supported by Backward Class people of the village, being Lambardar of 12 villages and a recommendee of the Gram Panchayat, appointed him as Backward Class Lambardar of the village Panchi Jatan vide his order dated 5.1.94. The respondent Hargian then filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division who vide his order dated 15.3.1994 set aside the Collector's order and appointed him as Backward Class Lambardar of the village finding him a Middle pass, an active member of Zila Sainik Board, having excellent character in the Army and also contributing Rs. 50/- to the School of Handicapped every year. The petitioner Tek Ram then filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana who vide his order dated 22.9.94 accepted the appeal and restored the Collector's order dated 5.1.1994. Respondents Hargian and Raj Pal then filed CWP No. 3227 of 1995 before the High Court who vide order dated 8.8.1995 treating Financial Commissioner's order as non-speaking, remanded the case for a fresh decision at an early date preferably within 2 months from the date of appearance of the parties.

(3.) ON the contrary, the counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that the respondent No. 1 is an ex-Serviceman, Middle pass from the Army, his three sons are serving the Indian Army and Delhi Police. That the respondent No. 1 is an active member of Zila Sainik Board and has been paying Rs. 50/- yearly to the Handicapped School. The Commissioner in para 6 of his order has also confirmed it. The counsel further states that the petitioner is hard of hearing and is more than 65 years old, getting old age pension and his financial position is weak. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 refers to 1990-PLJ-458 in support of his claim that when one's son is in Army, the claim of that candidate for Lambardari is better. Further referring to 1990-PLJ-86 the counsel further states that an educated person is to be preferred to an illiterate person, and that respondent being better educated should be preferred.