IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.21382 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 28, 2011 JOGINDER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. SS Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. SS Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. RS Mamli, Advocate, for respondent No.6. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed in challenge to order dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. 2 In brief, the facts are that Lambardar for Village Mukarabpur, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar, was to be appointed. After the purported Munadi, petitioner-Joginder Singh and one Netar Singh, who happens to be brother of respondent No.6, were the only applicants. Netar Singh, at the first instance only, withdrew his candidature and the petitioner came to be appointed by the Civil Writ Petition No.21382 of 2008 2 Collector. 3 At the stage when the case was pending before the Collector itself, an application was filed by respondent No.6 to the effect that no proper Munadi had been conducted and, therefore, the best candidates could not apply. The contention of respondent No.6 was rejected and the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar, vide order dated 9.8.2006 (Annexure P-1). 4 Respondent No.6 carried an appeal before the Commissioner, stating that the said respondent could not apply for being appointed as Lambardar although he was a better candidate. The Munadi report was not attested by any Panch/Sarpanch or any other respectable person of the village. 5 Be that as it may, the appeal was dismissed and the order of appointment of the petitioner was upheld, vide order dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.6 carried a revision, which has been allowed. 6 While allowing the revision, the Financial Commissioner, in the impugned order, has noticed that Karan Singh (respondent No.6 herein), had moved an application before the Collector in regard to improper Munadi. Only other contesting candidate-Netar Singh had withdrawn his candidature on the first hearing itself. It has Civil Writ Petition No.21382 of 2008 3 been held that it would have been appropriate, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, for the Collector to order fresh Munadi in the village to give opportunity to all the claimants, for appointment of Lambardar. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Netar Singh is none other but the brother of respondent No.6 and, therefore, respondent No.6 very well knew about the invitation of applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Munadi was properly conducted. 8 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9 The Lambardar is required to discharge duties, as given out under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. The nature of duties themselves call for appointment of a responsible and educated person. Since the Financial Commissioner, exercising revisional jurisdiction, has only remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh Munadi, in writ jurisdiction, I do not find any perversity in passing of the order. 10 It has been pointed out that six persons have already applied for the post of Lambardar. The petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.21382 of 2008 4 applied for being appointed as Lambardar in the year 2004. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has no objection if the candidature of the petitioner is also considered. 11 I am of the view that since the petitioner was earlier a contestant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner should also be given an opportunity to contest. 12 In view of the above, the petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to compete for appointment as Lambardar, under the application already filed in the year 2004. 13 Copy of the order be given dasti to Shri Dinarpur under the signatures of the Court Reader. February 28, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?