CWP No.13965 of 2011.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13965 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.08.2011 **** Kishan Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 11.03.2011 (Annexure P1) whereby the orders dated 07.08.2009 & 06.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and Collector, Faridabad, respectively have been upheld and the claim of the petitioner for his appointment as Lamberdar has been rejected. (2). The controversy pertains to appointment of Scheduled Caste Lamberdar of village Hirapur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. The vacancy was caused due to death of the father of the petitioner, namely, Balwanta who was the previous Lamberdar. The Assistant Collector after comparing the merit of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent CWP No.13965 of 2011.doc - 2 – No.4 recommended the latter for appointment as the new Lamberdar. Those recommendations were accepted by the Collector, Faridabad and have been further upheld/approved by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division as well as the Financial Commissioner, Haryana while dismissing the appeal/revision petition of the petitioner. (3). It is well settled that ordinarily the choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of a Lamberdar should be accepted unless found to be perverse or contrary to the material facts on record. In the instant case, it is not only the Collector but the higher authorities also, have found respondent No.4 to be more meritorious as compared to the petitioner. (4). In these circumstances, even if the petitioner’s contention that in the criminal case which has been taken as an adverse material against him, he was not the main accused or that he stood acquitted long back, are taken to be correct yet the limited scope of interference by a writ court dissuades to hold further probe in such like issues. (5). Dismissed. Dasti. 03.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge