RAJIVE BHALLA,J - (1.) THE petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders, dated 31.3.1999, 14.8.2001 and 22.11.2001, passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab Chandigarh respectively.
(2.) THE petitioner, respondent No. 4 and others applied for the post of Lambardar of village Pandori Mallian. The antecedents of the candidates were inquired and verified. The Circle Revenue Officer, Naib Tehsildar Gardhiwala, vide report, dated 18.9.1997, recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of Lambardar. His recommendation was endorsed by the Tehsidar, Dasuya. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dasuya, however, did not agree with the report and recommended the name of respondent No. 4. The District Collector, Hoshiarpur, vide order, dated 31.3.1999, held that Bikram Singh-respondent No. 4 was the most suitable candidate and directed his appointment as a Lambardar. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 14.8.2001. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred a revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab Chandigarh on 22.11.2001. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner's father was the Lambardar, his hereditary claim to the office of Lambardar should have received preference, in view of Rule 15(a) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909 (for short herein after referred to as "the Rules"). It is submitted that the petitioner is better qualified than respondent No. 4. Even otherwise, being a government servant, he is conversant with the government procedures and should, therefore, have been selected as the Lambardar. It is further argued that the District Collector rejected the petitioner's candidature on the ground that he was a government employee. This error in the order, passed by the District Collector, should have been rectified by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division or the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I. It is submitted that as the impugned orders are illegal and perverse, the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. Counsel for the respondents is not present.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. As regards hereditary claims for appointment to the post of Lambardar, Rule 15(a) of the Rules reads as follows : "15. Matter to be considered in first appointment - In all first appointments of headmen, regard shall be had among other matters to - (a) his hereditary claims; xx xx xx xx" 5. While considering the vires of a similar provision, namely, Rule 17(ii) of the Rules, and as a consequence, the provisions of Rule 15(a), a Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, 1973 PLJ 676, held as follows : "xx xx xx xx The main consideration that may appear to have prevailed is that the person selected was connected by ties of blood or heredity with the last incumbent. Shri Naubat Singh, the learned District Attorney for the State of Haryana, has argued that in actual practice other qualifications are also taken into consideration and the appointments are not made in all cases on the grounds only of heredity. Practice apart, Rule 17(ii) may seem to attach too much importance to the claim of heredity and the selection of the successor is sought to be confined to a male lineal descendant or the nearest collateral. Rule 17(ii) may seem to make discrimination or distinction on the ground of heredity or family connections. This rule may, therefore, appear to be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reference could in this connection be made to the Supreme Court rulings in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 564, and The State of Assam and others v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 884. Shri Naubat Singh has cited before us a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Rishikesavan Naidu v. S. Srinivasa Reddiar, A.I.R. 1965 Madras 178, but the facts in that case were altogether different. The person who had been selected to the hereditary office in that case had no other rival in the field. He would have been selected unopposed independently of his family connections with the deceased. It was under these circumstances that it was held that heredity was no disqualification being selected to a particular past or appointment. ;