IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23484 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 06, 2011 Raj Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Orders dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure P-3); dated 3.10.2007 (Annexure P-5); and 30.7.2010 (Annexure P-9). 2. Gist of the matter is that the seat of Lambardar for village Gokalgarh, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, fell vacant after death of Smt. Bishani Devi from Scheduled Caste CWP No.23484 of 2010 [2] category. Petitioner, Raj Kumar, was one of the claimants other than one Pawan Kumar. The District Collector, Ambala, considered Pawan Kumar (respondent No.4) to be the most suitable harijan for appointment of Lambardar. 3. The petitioner carried an appeal which has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. The petitioner thereafter carried a revision petition which has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. 4. The only ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that for non existent reasons, the authorities have taken into account the bad reputation of the petitioner for the alleged reason that petitioner was in illegal possession of land, which however had been vacated. 5. Learned counsel contends that perusal of Order Annexure P-1 indicates that Raj Kumar who was in illegal possession, is not Raj Kumar the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel, however, has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any portion of the order passed by the Commissioner or Financial Commissioner to show that this argument had ever been raised and the document, Annexure P-1, had been brought to the CWP No.23484 of 2010 [3] notice of the authorities. 7. Be that as it may, I have also considered that the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner have taken into account the comparative merit of both the persons. While the petitioner is 49 years of age, respondent No.4 is 28 years of age. Both the candidates are matriculates. In addition, private respondent has donated blood and is President of Guru Ravidas Mandir of the village and therefore, has been found to be serving the society. I do not find any reason to judicially review the well founded orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act and Rules. 8. No ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. 9. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 06, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?