ISHWAR SINGH versus SATBIR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 17-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
[2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 359 
ISHWAR SINGH 
v. 
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5552 of 2009) 
AUGUST 17, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Sefliice law - Appointment - Post of Lambardar -
Collector appointing respondent as lambardar -
Commissioner setting aside the same and appointing C 
appellant - Upheld by Financial Commissioner .:.. Jn writ 
petition, High Court restoring the order of Collector -
Interference with - Held: Financial Commissioner held that 
the Collector did not apply its mind and his order is perverse 
and illegal - High Court overlooked the same - It could have D 
interfered with the order of Financial Commissioner but must 
have given cogent and convincing reasons for such 
interference - Thus, order of High Court set. aside - Matter 
remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration. 
The question which arose. for consideration in this 
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in 
setting aside the order of Financial Commissioner as well 
E 
as the Commissioner by which appointment of the 
respondent as Lambardar by the Collector was set aside 
and appellant was appointed as Lambardar; and F 
restoring that of the Coltector. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Lambardar is a village. headman. His G 
main job is the collection of revenue. He is paid ~ixed 
remuneration as well as some commission. The criterion 
for appointment to the post of Lambardar, inter-alia, 
includes educational qualification, age, experience in 
359 
H 
360 -SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A working of Lambardari, land and property, character, 
ability and freedom from indebtedness. [Para 6] (364-E] 
.).._ 
1.2. The High Court in the impugned order observed 
l • 
' 
that there was nothing fn the orders passed by the 
~ 
B Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner that the 
choice of the Collector is perverse, violative or against in 
>
rules or procedure. This is apparently founded on 
erroneous premise. The Financial Commissioner 
~· 
categorically held that the Collector did not apply his 
')--' 
c mind judiciously and his order is perverse and illegal. The 
High Court seems to have overlooked the said 
observation. It is not suggested that within permissible 
limits of judicial review, the orders of the Financial 
~ 
Commissioner and Commissioner could not have been 
~ 
interfered with, but then the High Court must have given 
D cogent and convincing reasons for such interference. 
... 
~ 
The impugned order lacks in that. The matter needs to 
I 
~ 
be re-examined by the High Court afresh. The judgment 
\_ 
passed by High Court is set aside and the writ petition is 
restored to the file of High Court for fresh consideration. 
E (Paras 8 and 9] (365-E-H; 366-A-B] 
Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and Ors. 2009 (3) SCC 439, 
refe·rred to. 
Case Law Reference: · 
~ A 
F 
'+ 
2009 (3) sec 439 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5552 of 2009: 
G 
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.04.2008 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition 
No.1672 of 2008. 
~ 
Dinesh Chander Yadav, A.S. Rishi, Dr. Kailash Chand for 
•' 
H the Appellant. 
ISHWAR SINGH v. SATBIR SINGH & ORS. 
361 
S.B. Sanyal, Dr. K.R. Punia, Santosh Singh, Rakesh 
A 
-4 
Mudgal, Sharda Hooda for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
B 
2. The controversy in this appeal by special leave relates 
to the appointment of l-ambardar for village Pehladgarh, Tehsil 
f' 
and District Bhiwani. The said post fell vacant due to the death 
of the then Lambardar on August 1, 2000. Four persons applied 
for that post but later on two candidates withdrew thtt-1r c 
candidature and the present Appellant and Respondent No. 1 
remained for selection. The Collector, Bhiwani by his order 
dated December 15, 2005 considered the candidature of these 
two candidates and issued an order of appointment in favour 
> 
of Respondent No. 1 as Lambardar of village Pehladgarh. In 
D 
) 
the opinion of the Collector, Bhiwani, Satbir Singh, Respondent 
No. 1, was more suitable. This is how the Collector, District 
Bhiwani considered comparative merits of these two 
candidates : 
" .......... I have come to conclusion that Satbir Singh 
E 
candidate is a suitable candidate. He is Matric pass and 
has passed the B.A. from Military. He has 7 acres of land 
,. 
which is sufficient for filing taxes. Satbir Singh c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.