IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1162 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 21, 2011 Het Ram .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 30.9.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1 i.e. Financial Commissioner, Haryana. 2. Learned counsel contends that the Financial Commissioner has remanded the matter back to the Collector on the premise that possibly Baldev Singh (respondent No.4), who had CWP No.1162 of 2011 [2] applied for the post of Lambardar and was considered by the Tehsildar, had no occasion to project his case before the Collector. 3. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards Grounds of Appeal filed by Baldev Singh, placed on record as Annexure P-2 (running Page 32 of the paperbook) where Baldev Singh took a specific stand that he argued on allegations before the Collector but the Collector has failed to discuss any ground, evidence, argument and therefore, this non speaking order is liable to be set aside. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, agrees that comparative merit of Baldev Singh has not been considered in the body of the order of Collector, Sirsa (Annexure P-1). In the first para, name of Baldev Singh son of Kanshi Ram finds mention, however, his particulars have not been taken into account while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. 6. Considering the fact that comparative merit of Baldev Sigh has not been considered, I am of the considered opinion that no legal flaw can be traced in the order of Financial Commissioner. The order accordingly calls for no interference in extraordinary writ CWP No.1162 of 2011 [3] jurisdiction. 7. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 21, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?