01Facts
Following the death of the previous Lambardar in 2004, the appellant was appointed Lambardar by the District Collector in 2019.
¶ 2The Divisional Commissioner set aside that appointment in 2021 and appointed respondent No. 4; the Financial Commissioner dismissed the appellant’s revision in 2026.
¶ 2In the appellant’s writ petition, the Single Judge set aside respondent No. 4’s appointment but directed the authorities to restart the selection process rather than appoint the appellant.
¶ 2In this appeal, the appellant sought only a time-bound conclusion of the process, which had remained pending for over two decades.
¶ 2, 8The State submitted that both candidates had criminal cases in their histories and argued that their conduct was relevant to their suitability.
¶ 4–502Issues
i.1. Whether, in view of the appellant’s limited prayer, the Court should direct the authorities to complete the Lambardar selection process within a specified period.
¶ 2, 8–9ii.2. Whether the Court should determine the eligibility or comparative merit of the appellant and respondent No. 4 in this appeal.
¶ 803Law Applied
The Court relied on Sukhbir Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others, which treats a candidate’s involvement in a criminal case—even where the candidate is later acquitted—as a relevant factor in assessing comparative merit, though not necessarily a disqualification.
¶ 7The authorities must assess candidates against the relevant criteria for Lambardar appointment, including education, age, experience, land and property, character, ability, and freedom from indebtedness, as discussed in Ishwar Singh v. Satbir Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 392.
¶ 7The Court also noted Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 (4) SCT 18, and the discussion of Major Singh in Sukhbir Singh.
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135
04Reasoning
The Court confined its consideration to the appellant’s request for a time-bound process and expressly declined to examine the merits of the appeal or the eligibility and competence of either candidate.
¶ 8Given the prolonged pendency of the selection process, it directed a fresh advertisement inviting applications from all eligible applicants.
¶ 9It required the District Collector to complete the process within six months and to make the selection in accordance with the principles in Sukhbir Singh.
¶ 905Holding
The appeal was disposed of without deciding either candidate’s entitlement to appointment.
¶ 9–10The District Collector was directed to issue a fresh advertisement for Lambardar/Headman, invite applications from all eligible applicants, and complete the appointment process within six months, keeping Sukhbir Singh in view.
¶ 9–10Original Court PDF
Satish KumarvsFiancial Commissioner Haryana And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
