VIRENDRA NATH,J - (1.) THESE three appeals in a lambardari matter have been filed against orders of the Commissioner Hisar Division dated 17.2.1999. Since the facts of the three cases are the same they are being decided through a single order.
(2.) THE facts briefly are that Goma Ram, the petitioner in all three cases, was recommended for appointment as lambardar by the lower revenue officers and was appointed as such by the Collector vide order dated 17.3.1998. Three appeals against the above order were filed before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide order dated 17.2.1999 remanded the case to the Collector with the direction that all the contesting candidates, excepting, Goma Ram should be heard afresh and the case be decided on merits. The Commissioner decided to exclude the name of Goma Ram on the basis that one person from the Backward Class is already working as a Numberdar and the post now being filled is for the general category. Further, Goma Ram was also illiterate and when educated persons can be available, it would be improper to appoint an illiterate as the Numberdar. While excluding Goma Ram from the area of consideration, the Commissioner also did not find the other three appellants suitable in view of the various short-comings/deficiencies noticed against them. Harbans Singh was living away from the village, Manohar Lal was involved in Criminal case, though acquitted, Mohan Lal was a defaulter. I have heard the counsel for the various candidates, except Mohan Lal who neither was represented by a counsel nor was present in person. It is clear from the facts of the case that there are serious deficiencies in the case of all the contenting (contesting ?) candidates. Mention about their deficiencies has already been made in the preceding para. About Manohar Lal's case it deserves mention that he was charged in a case under Sections 307, 148, 149 IPC and 27/54 Arms Act and the case involved attack on a cultivating tenant. He was however acquitted in the case and given benefit of doubt on account of inadequate evidence. Such a person can hardly deserves to become a Lambardar of the village. The Commissioner made the order under appeal only in search of a better person. I however feel that it may be undesirable to exclude any one person from the area of consideration. In other words, while we may not exclude any one candidate from the area of consideration, it goes without saying that the observations made by the Commissioner in his order and the observations made in the present order will have to be kept in view by the Collector to whom the case was remanded by the Commissioner for a fresh selection, while judging the relative merit of the candidates. With the above modifications/observations all these three appeals are dismissed. To be communicated. Appeals dismissed.;