HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
RAJNESH OSWAL, J
Mulkh Raj – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K and others – Respondent
CM No. 708/2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. community objections can lead to re-evaluation of lambardar appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. individual rights to appointment are subject to community consensus. (Para 3 , 4 , 7) |
| 3. court mandates elections after prolonged delay in appointment process. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
30.05.2025 ORAL
1. Initially public notice dated 17.01.2023 was issued by the respondents inviting applications from the interested candidates for appointment as Lambardar for various villages as mentioned in Annexure-A including the village of the petitioner, namely, Jindlehar. It is stated that the petitioner in response to the said notification submitted an application, which was accepted by the respondents, but with malafide intention, the concerned Tehsildar issued subsequent notification dated 06.02.2023 inviting fresh applications for appointment as Lambardar for village Jindlehar.
2. The respondents have filed response, stating therein that as per the enquiry report of Naib Tehsildar dated 03.02.2023, during special camp for the appointment of Lambardar of village Jindlehar, majority of the inhabitants of the said village objected to the proposed appointment of the petitioner and requested to issue fresh notification so that other eligible candidates may also apply for the said post. It is further stated that notification was issued for appointment of Lambardar in accordance with Rule 14(4) of Lambardari Rules and not for elections of Lambardar.
3. Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner was the sole candidate for the Office of Lambardar for village Jindlehar, as such, he was required to be appointed as Lambardar.
4. Per contra, Ms. Monika Kohli, learned senior AAG submits that the petitioner was not appointed as majority of the inhabitants of village objected to the proposed appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar for village Jindlehar.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is evident that the notification was issued by the respondents for appointment of Lambardar and not for election of Lambardar. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was the sole candidate for the Office of Lambardar for village Jindlehar. Fresh notification dated 06.02.2023 was issued, inviting applications for appointment as Lambardar for village Jindlehar, however, that order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2023. The Lambardar can be appointed temporarily only for a period of six months under the Rule
14 (4) of the Lambardari Rules .
7. The petitioner has no vested right of appointment simply because he was the sole candidate particularly when majority of the inhabitants of the village were against the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar.
8. In view of the fact that more than two years have elapsed, as such, no fruitful purpose shall be served by directing the respondents to re- initiate the process for appointment of Lambardar temporarily. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents to conduct elections for the Office of Lambardar for village Jindlehar within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the respondents.
9. Disposed of along with the connected application.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.