IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1564 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 08.11.2011 Biram Pal .... APPELLANT Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 17.5.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition (CWP No. 14220 of 2009) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 22.1.2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar (respondent No.3), appointing Satish Kumar (respondent No.4) as Lambardar of General Class of village Khadri, District Yamuna Nagar; as well as the orders dated 17.9.2008 and 10.2.2009 (Annexures P-2 and P-3), passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt (respondent No.2), and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.1), respectively, whereby the appeal and revision, filed by the petitioner, have LPA No. 1564 of 2011 -2- been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order as well as the aforesaid orders. The claims of the appellant and respondent No.4 for appointment on the post of Lambardar were comparatively considered by the Collector. In view of the fact that the appellant had illegally cut 13 trees of the Forest Department, for which a fine of ` 6,000/- was imposed upon him by the department, as well as the fact that character of the appellant was shady, found respondent No.4 as more suitable candidate and appointed him as Lambardar of the village. The order of the Collector has been upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner in appeal and revision, respectively. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the fact that the appellant had illegally cut 13 trees of the Forest Department, for which the department had imposed a fine of ` 6,000/- upon him. However, he argued that respondent No.4 is not Middle Pass, therefore, he could not be appointed as Lambardar of the village. Prior to the year 2009, there was no qualification condition for appointing a person as Lambardar of the village. In this case, on 22.2.2008, when respondent No.4 was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector, the instructions which required that Lambardar of a village should be Middle Pass did not came into force. In view of this fact, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that since respondent No.4 was not Middle LPA No. 1564 of 2011 -3- Pass, therefore, he was not eligible for appointment on the post of Lambardar, is not tenable. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the orders of the authorities below, whereby finding respondent No.4 to be more suitable than the appellant, he (respondent No.4) has been appointed as Lambardar. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 08, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reena/ndj JUDGE