CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10561 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 20, 2009 Balkar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. G. L. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. O. P. Kamboj, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.10561 of 2007 (Balkar Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner and others) and and 3307 of 2009 (Darshan Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner and others). A vacancy of Harijan Lambardar in village Basti CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10561 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: Daulatpura, Tehsil and District Ferozepur was created in the year 2004. Process to fill the same was initiated by inviting applications from the candidates desirous for appointment. Five persons submitted their applications. Four out of these withdrew and thus respondent No.4 alone was left in the field. Collector accordingly appointed him as Lambardar on 15.3.2005. The petitioner challenged the appointment on the ground that no proclamation was made in the village. He also pleaded that the candidates who withdrew their candidature were men of respondent No.4 and had submitted their applications just to make it a case of genuine consideration. The petitioner came to know from Patwari about the appointment of respondent No.4 in second week of August, 2005 and, thus, filed an appeal against the order dated 15.3.3005. Commissioner Ferozepur allowed this appeal and set-aside the appointment of respondent No.4 and remanded the case to Collector for fresh decision. Respondent No.4 challenged this order before the Financial Commissioner, who has accepted the appeal on 12.10.2006. The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. Learned counsel contends that prayer was made before the Financial Commissioner to grant time to rebut the documents which were produced by respondent No.4 for the first time in the appeal, but no time was granted, which has led to miscarriage of justice. Notice of motion was issued and written statement is filed. Respondent No.4 in his written statement has denied if proclamation was not effected in the village. It is also stated that the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10561 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: petitioner was always aware of the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Lambardar. The fact that application for appointment of Lambardar were invited was recorded in the Daily Diary of Patwari bearing No.268 dated 23.12.2004. He has accordingly prayed that order passed by the Financial Commissioner be sustained. The Financial Commissioner, while interfering with the order passed by the Commissioner, has returned a finding about veracity of the documents presented by respondent No.4 and has held that these could not be doubted. In fact, the Financial Commissioner had given chance to the counsel for the petitioner to challenge the veracity of the documents on an affidavit so that prima- facie case was made out, warranting further proof. He also found that order dated 21.12.2004 of Tehsildar, directing Patwari to do the munadi for inviting applications, being an official record could not be doubted. The counsel for the petitioner was not willing to formally challenge the said documents. In view of this position, the Financial Commissioner has rightly held that the comparison of the petitioner with that of respondent No.4 would not be called for as otherwise the petitioner was not a candidate who had made an application within the stipulated period. Having found that munadi had been done in the village and that proclamation for inviting applications could not be and should not be done again and again, on a slightest pretext. Financial Commissioner found that factum of munadi was established by the official record and could not be discarded on conjecture and frivolous presumptions. He accordingly set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and upheld the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The view taken by the Financial CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10561 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: Commissioner is well reasoned and does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Civil Writ Petition No.10561 of 2007 is accordingly dismissed. So would be the fate of Civil Writ Petition No.3307 of 2009, which otherwise has been filed with much delay. The impugned order was passed by the Financial Commissioner on 12.10.2006, whereas the writ petition has now been filed on 28.2.2009. There is no explanation forthcoming for this delay. Even otherwise, no different grounds are urged to challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. Both writ petitions, thus, are dismissed. March 20, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE