MAHAVIR SINGH versus KHIALI RAM & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 12-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 534 
MAHAVIR SINGH 
v. 
KHIALI RAM & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7252 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 12, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: 
Article 226 - Power of High Court to review the order of 
C appointing authority - High Court setting aside appointment 
of Lambardar (Village Headman) made by Collector and 
directing appointment of writ petitioner - HELD: Court while 
exercising power of judicial review has a limited jurisdiction 
and is ordinarily concerned with correctness of decision 
0 making process and not merit of the decision - In the instant 
case, High Court has not found that Collector, in analyzing ' 
the comparative merits of two candidates, committed any error 
in his decision making process - Equity also does not lie in 
favour of the writ petitioner- Even otherwise, when respective 
merits of candidates is taken into consideration, equity has 
E no role to play - Judgment of High Court set aside -. Equity 
- Punjab Land Revenue Rules - rr. 15 and 16. 
PUNJAB LAND R~VENUE RULES: 
rr. 15 and 16 - Appointment of Lambardar (Village 
F Headman) - Criteria - HELD: Collector being the appointing 
authority has considered the relevant factors and comparative 
merits of candidates in terms of r. 15 - High Court erred in 
setting aside the appointment made by Collector and in 
directing appointment of writ petitioner - Punjab Land 
Revenue Act, 1887 - s.28. 
G 
r. 16 - Lambardar (Village Headman) -
Nature of 
appointment - HELD: Holder of post of Lambardar is not a 
government servant - He does not hold a civil post within the 
meaning of Article 309 of the Constitution - His main income 
is the amount of commission which he receives out of 
H 
534 
-
+ 
--
MAHAVIR SINGH v. KHIALI RAM & ORS. 
535 
~ 
/ 
revenue collected - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309. 
A 
-;. " 
Respondent no. 1, who along with the appellant was 
short-listed as a candidate for the post of Lambardar 
(Village Headman), challenged, by way of writ petition in 
the High Court, the order of the Collector appointing the 
appellant to the said post. The High Court allowed the 
8 
writ petition and directed that respondent no. 1 be 
appointed to the post of Lambardar as in its opinion he 
was more meritorious than the appellant. 
... 
In the instant appeal it was primarily contended for 
the appellant that the High Court committed a serious c 
error as it, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, entered into the 
.... 
merit of respective candidates . 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Although the post of Lambardar is 
governed by the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue 
D 
Act and the Rules framed thereunder, holder of the said 
post is not a government servant. He does not hold a civil 
~ 
post within the meaning of Article 309 of the Constitution 
~ 
of India. He although is paid a fixed sum but his main 
income is the amount of commission which he receives 
E 
out of the revenue collected. Apart from collection of 
revenue, he has other functions to perform including 
rendition of assistance to the investigating officer when 
a crime is committed in the village. [Para 12) [541-F-H; 
542-A] 
Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd edition 2005, page 2616, 
F 
-t 
referred to. 
...... 
1.2. The District Collector is the appointing authority. 
He considered the respective merits of the candidates in 
great details, including the factor that the appellant was G , 
more experienced in Lambardari work as he was the son 
of a deceased Lambardar and used to help him in the 
work. The Collector also found the appellant being 36 
-). 
years of age to be more suitable than respondent No. 1 
~ 
who was aged 62 years at the relevant time. So far as 
\ 
\ 
character of the respective candidates is concerned, all 
H 
-
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 17 S.C.R. e 
,. 
'> 
A were found to have been possessing good character. 
Similar opinion was expressed in respect of land and 
property. The Collector drew his conclusion, upon taking 
j 
_,,,. 
into consideration the factors which were all relevant for 
the purpose of appointment to the post of 'Lambardar'. 
B [para 13] [542-A-F] 
· Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v. Ghulam Haidar 1940 Lahore 
Law Times 25; Kalyan Singh v. Haidar 1928 Lahore Law 
Times 33; Lila Ram v. Asa Ram 1955 Lahore Law Times 
A 
29 and Jai Dayal v. Mohar Singh 1962 P.L.J. 64, referred 
~ 
c to. 
2. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction 
under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.