C.W.P. No. 12329 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12329 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 15.07.2011 Krishan ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The petitioner in the present petition has challenged order dated 27.4.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by District Collector, Mahendergarh at Narnaul, order dated 15.4.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide which, the candidature of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 for the post of Lambardar has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders passed by all the authorities are contrary to the facts as in the recommendation made by Naib Tehsildar, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was not found in illegal possession of the Panchayat land, has not been taken into consideration. The order passed by the Collector has wrongly been upheld by the higher authorities. To support his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Labh Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Appeal-II, Punjab and C.W.P. No. 12329 of 2011 (2) another 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 832. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned orders as well as other documents available on the file. As per the case set up in the petition, after the death of one Ram Sarup, Lambardar of village Malra Sarai, the process to fill up the post of Lambardar was initiated by the revenue authorities. On receiving of the recommendation, respondent No.3 was appointed as Lambardar of village Malra Sarai by Collector, Mahendergarh vide order dated 18.1.2007. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, an appeal was filed before Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, who vide order dated 28.8.2009 remanded the case to the Collector with a direction to decide the case after reconsidering the relevant facts of the case. Subsequently after remand, Collector vide order dated 27.4.2010 held that both the candidates were not eligible for the post of Lambardar and fresh applications are ordered to be invited by conducting Munadi in the village. Against order dated 27.4.2010, an appeal was filed before Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, which was dismissed and order of Collector was upheld. Against the order of Commissioner, petitioner filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was also dismissed by holding that mere submission of application does not entitle a candidate to be appointed as Lambardar unless he/she is found to be suitable by the Collector of the District. The present petition has been filed to challenge the orders of Collector, Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner. In the order dated 27.4.2010 passed by the Collector, District Mahendergarh at Narnaul, it has clearly been mentioned that the petitioner was working as a teacher in a private school and eviction order was passed against him by Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Mahendergarh, whereas, respondent No.3 was residing in Rajasthan. It has also been C.W.P. No. 12329 of 2011 (3) mentioned that both the candidates i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.3 are not eligible for Lamberdar and Assistant Collector IInd Grade was directed to invite fresh applications by conducting munadi in the village. The appeal as well as revision filed against the aforesaid order were dismissed and order for inviting fresh applications was upheld. Moreover, submission of application for the post of Lambardar does not create any right to be appointed as Lambardar and in case the suitable candidates are not available, fresh applications can be invited, as has been ordered by the District Collector. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by all the authorities as after perusal of the respective merits of both the candidates none of them was found suitable and just to invite more applications to get most suitable candidate, order for inviting fresh applications was passed. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable keeping in view the facts in the present case. In view of the facts mentioned above, there is no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. July 15, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE