IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 05, 2010 GULAB DEVI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl.AG, Haryana. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Vipin Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, and order dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. The post of Lambardar fell vacant for Village Nangal Chaudhary in District Mahendergarh, for which applications were invited. Collector, District Mahendergarh, vide order dated 19.12.2007 (Annexure P-1), after considering the comparative meritS, found petitioner-Gulab Civil Writ Petition No.1 of 2011 2 Devi as a person fit to be appointed as Lambardar. Two revisions were carried by two of the unsuccessful persons. Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, vide order dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-2) set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case back to the Collector with a direction that merits and demerits of the candidates should be considered afresh. The scope of remand appears to be that the petitioner was an Anganwari Worker and would not be able to attend the work of Lambardar. Some doubts were also shown as to whether preference needs to be given to the petitioner in view of her hereditary claim because the petitioner will not be available for serving the villagers. Be that as it may, the petitioner and another person filed separate revisions before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order (Annexure P-4) upheld the order of the Commissioner thereby, in effect, holding that the Collector needs to take a decision afresh, after considering comparative merits of the candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the private respondents contend that already there has been a considerable delay in taking a decision on the issue. The post of Lambardar fell vacant in the year 2006 and till date no final decision has been taken. In case, the matter is referred back to the Collector, the aggrieved party would again avail of the remedies under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and the Rules framed thereunder. Considering the concession given on behalf of the contesting parties, order dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed. The Civil Writ Petition No.1 of 2011 3 matter is remanded back to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, with a direction that the comparative merits of the candidates be taken into account and after considering the effect and import of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909, the final order in regard to appointment of Lambardar be passed by 18.4.2011. The parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 17.1.2011. The parties shall not take any adjournment and shall not delay the process of Court. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. January 05, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?