IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17513 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 19, 2011 Raj Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Revenue authorities invited applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar at village Gurgaon. Petitioner was one of the applicant. The Collector appointed respondent No.2 Umed Singh as Lambardar, against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed on 17.1.2002. The petitioner filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, who allowed the same and appointed petitioner as Lambardar. This order was challenged by respondent No.2 before this Court. This Court, after setting-aside the order, remanded the case back to Financial Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The Financial Commissioner now has upheld the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner and has appointed respondent No.2 as Lambardar. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is involved in a criminal case and is also accused of having five voter ID cards. Apparently, these submissions were not before the Financial Commissioner or the authorities below. The only point for Civil Writ Petition No.17513 of 2011 : 2 : consideration before the Financial Commissioner was that respondent No.2 had furnished surety for some accused, who had jumped bail. This was not considered a reason enough to disentitle respondent No.2 for the post of Lambardar. The fact that respondent No.2 is involved in some criminal cases or is accused of having five voter ID cards was not pleaded before the authorities below and, thus, cannot be taken into consideration. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the authorities for appropriate action under the Act. No case for interference on the facts as pleaded is made out. Dismissed. September 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE