CWP No. 8226 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8226 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: May 10, 2011 Baljit Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.P. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Headman/Lambardar for village Manas, Tehsil and District Kaithal was to be appointed, for which applications were invited. Four applicants contested for the post, however, Hari Sharan and Ram Pal remained in the fray. 2. Vide order Annexure P-3 dated 23.02.2010, Ram Pal-respondent no. 3 was appointed as the Headman. Hari Sharan carried an appeal. Vide order Annexure P-4 dated 30.06.2010, the Commissioner accepted the appeal and appointed Hari Sharan as the Headman. Aggrieved by the order, Ram Pal challenged the order passed by Commissioner before Financial Commissioner. Vide impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 18.01.2011, respondent no. 3-Ram Pal has been appointed as the Headman. 3. While the case was pending before the Financial Commissioner and had not been taken up for hearing, Hari Sharan died on 13.09.2010. 4. The petitioner-Baldev Singh, son of Hari Sharan contends that CWP No. 8226 of 2011 2 right of consideration of the petitioner has been taken away because the petitioner has the hereditary claim. Per se, his case was required to be considered. Non-consideration of the case of the petitioner has caused manifest injustice. 5. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 6. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 3-Ram Pal was appointed as Headman by Collector vide order Annexure P-3 dated 23.02.2010. Only Hari Sharan and Ram Pal were in the fray contesting for appointment to the post of Headman. While the proceedings were pending before the Financial Commissioner initiated at the instance of Ram Pal, Hari Sharan died. 7. No demerit in the claim of respondent no. 3-Ram Pal can be traced such as Ram Pal has criminal antecedents etc. Rather, Ram Pal is the choice of the Collector, which order is required to be given importance in precedence. 8. In view of judgment rendered by this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab Chandigarh and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 862; 2009 (1) PLR 82, the provision providing preference to hereditary claim has been held to be ultra vires the Constitution of India. Since the proceedings were already pending before the Financial Commissioner in regard to appointment of Headman and Ram Pal was already available, vide impugned order, Ram Pal has been appointed. Since the petitioner was not an applicant, he would have no right to compete for appointment as Headman. 9. In such circumstances, no illegality can be traced in the order passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana i.e. Annexure P-6. 10. No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is CWP No. 8226 of 2011 3 made out. 11. Petition dismissed. 10.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?