IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CWP-22691-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 28.08.2025 Ombir Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral)

Petitioner (Ombir Singh) has filed the instant Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector, Jhajjar, order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

2. Briefly, on demise of Sh. Madan Singh, previous lambardar (General category) of Village Aurangpur, Tehsil Badli, District Jhajjar, proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacancy; wherein the petitioner- Ombir Singh and respondent No.4- Devender Singh were the candidates.

2.1 The learned Collector, Jhajjar, upon comparing the relative merits and de-merits of the candidates, found respondent No.4- Devender Singh as more suitable candidate and accordingly appointed him as lambardar of Village Aurangpur vide order dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure P-1).

2.2 Feeling aggrieved against the Collector’s order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-2).

2.3 Still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision petition (ROR No. 744/2018-19) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-3).

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition before this Court for the reliefs as noticed hereinabove.

4. Heard.

5. In the instant case, respondent No.4- Devender Singh was appointed as lambardar of Village Aurangpur, by the learned Collector. The Collector’s choice has been further affirmed by learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak as well as learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, while affirming the Collector’s order, has observed as under:

“From the comparative statement of the candidates, it is seen that both the candidates are 10^th pass. However, the respondent has 82 kanal of land whereas the petitioner owns lesser land i.e. 56 kanal. In terms of age, the respondent is more mature being 41 years of age compared to 33 years of the petitioner. It is also seen that the respondent is a Panchayat member. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent is not available in the village and is running a Kiryana Shop in Rangpuri area in Delhi and is living in Delhi but no documents have been attached which will prove that the respondent is not living in the village and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak has also observed that the petitioner has been unable to prove that the respondent was living outside the village. On the other hand it is not disputed that the respondent is a Gram Panchayat member which means that he is living in the village. It is further observed that an FIR was registered against the petitioner in which he has been acquitted. There are certain rulings by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as mentioned by the Counsel for the respondent according to which even if the person is acquitted, it is stigmatic. Further, even if this issue of lodging of FIR against the petitioner is ignored, still the respondent appears to be more meritorious.

It is a well settled law that the choice of the Collector should not be ordinarily interfered with unless there is perversity or illegality in the orders of the Collector which is not the case here. Further, the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs Khiali Ram & others, 2009(3) SCC-439,