CWP-26482-2016 228 CWP-26482-2016 Sukhbir Singh ...... Petitioners Versus Deputy Commissioner, Ambala & ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. Ishaan Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. Atul Aggarwal , Advocate for respondent No.3. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1 By way of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari impugning order dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Barara and order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P/2) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, whereby respondent No.3 has been appointed as Chowkidar. The process to appoint Chowkidar was initiated after seeking permission from Deputy Commissioner, which was accorded vide communication dated 24.08.2012. Munadi was affected. Five applications were received including that from POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26482-2016 the petitioner and the private respondents. One of the candidates, namely, Krishan Kumar, withdrew his candidature in favour of private respondent No.3. Mange Ram withdrew his application in favour of one Parmod Kumar. Accordingly, three candidates were left in the fray. Sub Divisional Officer (C) vide order dated 29.05.2014, appointed respondent No.3 as Chowkidar. The decision was challenged in appeal by the present petitioner. The main thrust of the challenge raised by the petitioner is that there was a criminal proceeding pending against respondent No. 3 under Sections 323, 452, 506/34 IPC and still he has been appointed as Chowkidar in an illegal manner. The appellate authority after evaluating the evidence on record concluded that the present petitioner, who was born on 20.05.1971, was more than 45 years of age. As per government notification dated 11.01.2013 he has crossed the age of 45 years, hence he could not be appointed. So far as the pendency of criminal proceedings against respondent No. 3 are concerned, the appellate authority noticed that he was merely summoned in a private complaint, that too under Sections 323, 452, 506/34 IPC and thus the same cannot be said to be a bar against his appointment. 2 Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has reiterated that a person with criminal background has been appointed as Chowkidar. The same has been controverted by counsel for respondent No. 3, who submits that though respondent No. 3 was summoned in a complaint case, but he stands discharged by the Trial Court vide order dated 13.07.2017. It is also a matter of fact that respondent No. 3 has continued to POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26482-2016 work as Chowkidar since his appointment and there is no complaint pending against him nor is there any complaint against his work. 3 In view of thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present writ petition, more so considering the fact that the offices of Chowkidar and Lambardar are not public offices. The Supreme Court has clarified that the eligibility condition has to be seen not on the date of application, but on the date of appointment. By now, petitioner having crossed the age of 45 years, the appellate authority as well as appointing authority rightly non-suited the present petitioner. 4 Finding no merits in the present writ petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) 16.07.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document