IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 422 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: May 25, 2009 Ram Singh …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the appellant. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 2.3.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 3081 of 2009. The matter pertains to appointment to the office of Headman (Lambardar). The learned Single Judge has upheld the order dated 25.11.2008 (P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, in turn upholding the order passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, on 31.3.2008 (P-3). It is appropriate to mention that the Collector had L.P.A. No. 422 of 2009 (O&M) appointed the appellant to the office of Headman (Lambardar) but on account of material irregularities and lapses committed in publication notice inviting applications, the order was set aside by the Commissioner and then by the Financial Commissioner. The basic reason given by the aforesaid authorities as also by the learned Single Judge is that no proper publication by beat of drum (Munadi) was made in the village and that there was collusion between the appellant and the Patwari. It has also been found that the report with regard to publication made in the village by beat of drum was forged and the recommendation of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade was illegal. Accordingly, the order of the Collector appointing the appellant to the office of the Headman (Lambardar) has been set aside with the direction to start the process afresh for appointing a suitable person to the office of Headman (Lambardar). 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length and perusing the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also by the Financial Commissioner/Commissioner, we are of the view that categorical findings of collusion between the Patwari and the appellant have been recorded which are not open to challenge either in the writ jurisdiction or in an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. There are further findings that the report of Munadi sent by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade was forged. The authorities have now directed the Collector to start the process afresh for appointment of a suitable person to the office of Headman (Lambardar). It is needless to say that the appellant would be entitled 2 L.P.A. No. 422 of 2009 (O&M) to participate and compete as per the rules. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. 3. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not feel the necessity of passing any order in the civil miscellaneous applications filed alongwith the appeal and the same are disposed of as such. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) May 25, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3