CWP No. 9248 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9248 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: May 24, 2011 Gurdev Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexure P-1 dated 27.04.2011 passed by District Collector, Ferozepur in compliance of order passed by this Court while dealing with CWP No. 7080 of 2010 entitled Kulwant Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 26.04.2011. 2. The sequence of events relevant for consideration of the issue raised in this petition is that an apprehension was shown by the petitioners in CWP No. 7080 of 2011 that Gurdev Singh s/o Surjit Singh, a contestant for the post of Lambardar for village Mohkam Araian, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur has relied on a forged education certificate so as to get selected. Considering the fact that the case was still at the stage of District Collector for consideration, District Collector, Ferozepur was directed to have an inquiry conducted at the first instance whether Gurdev Singh had CWP No. 9248 of 2011 2 relied on a fake certificate or not and only thereafter take a decision in regard to appointment of Lambardar. 3. From the documents placed on record, it appears that District Education Officer was asked to furnish a report, as is evident from Annexure P-4. The Collector has passed order Annexure P-1 dated 27.04.2011 saying that SDM, Jalalabad is directed to hold inquiry himself at his own level and the same be not entrusted with any other official. The candidates were asked to appear before SDM Jalalabad on 18.05.2011. 4. Since effect and impact of the impugned order is only in compliance of order passed by this Court (Annexure P-2), no ground for interference at this stage is made out. The petitioner would be at liberty to state his case before the Inquiry Officer and subsequently before the District Collector, at the point in time when appointment of Lambardar is being considered by that authority. 5. Petition dismissed. 24.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE