IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12660 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 16, 2011 Mohinder Pal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 27.1.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Collector, Ambala; and Order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. CWP No.12660 of 2009 [2] 3. The Collector appointed respondent No.3, Anil Kumar, as Lambardar of village Sardaheri, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala. Appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and accordingly, petitioner (Mohinder Pal) was appointed as Lambardar. Respondent No.3 went up in appeal before the Financial Commissioner. Order of the Collector has been restored, and respondent No.3, Anil Kumar, has been ordered to be appointed as Lambardar. 4. When the matter was heard on 23.9.2009, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Contends that the District Collector, Ambala, in his order dated 27.1.04 (P2) has inter-alia observed that the age and education of both the candidates for the post of Nambardar, are almost similar. Besides, a reference has been made to the copy of certificates (Ex.P2 and Ex.P13) of Anil Kumar (respondent-3). The ld. counsel submits that information regarding B.A. Certificate (P10) of Anil Kumar was sought under the Right to Information Act from the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi and it has, vide intimation dt. 12.2.09 (p11) informed that the B.A. certificate (P10) is forged. Notice of motion for 12.11.09.” 5. At this stage, an affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3, Anil Kumar, to show that he would have no objection if the petitioner is appointed as Lambardar. Respondent No.3 accordingly withdraws his claim for appointment as Lambardar in view of the compromise effected between the petitioner and CWP No.12660 of 2009 [3] respondent No.3. 6. On perusal of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, I find that respondent No.3 has been appointed Lambardar while considering disability in the merit of the petitioner. The petitioner has been found to be in unauthorised possession of Gram Panchayat land, as per report furnished by the Collector. 7. It appears that because the fabrication of certificate has been brought to light by the petitioner, the respondent has withdrawn his claim for appointment as Lambardar. Mere fact that the respondent has withdrawn his claim for Lambardari before this Court, would not necessarily imply that the petitioner can be appointed as Lambardar. This is particularly so because the Financial Commissioner has found the petitioner to be in unauthorised possession of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. 8. Considering the fact that allegedly the respondent has used a fabricated certificate to show his higher qualification, respondent No.3 cannot be allowed to continue as Lambardar. In view of the unauthorised possession of the petitioner over Gram Panchayat land, the said fact would disentitle him for being appointed as Lambardar. CWP No.12660 of 2009 [4] 9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the authorities are hereby quashed. Matter is remanded back to the District Collector, Ambala, for appointment of Lambardar again, after inviting applictions afresh. 10. It is made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for the post of Lambardar, however, the Collector would be required to look into the circumstances of his being in unauthorised possession. 11. Before parting with the judgment, it is directed that prima facie enquiry be held and if respondent No.3 has been found to have used the forged/ fabricated B.A. Certificate from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, criminal proceedings be initiated against him. 12. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (AJAI LAMBA) February 16, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?