IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.10602 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 19, 2011 MOHAN LAL ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Lambardar of Village Bahadurgarh, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, was to be appointed. Vide order dated 4.11.2003 (Annexure P-1), petitioner-Mohan Lal was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector. Respondent No.4-Ram Kumar carried an appeal. Vide order dated 7.11.2008 (Annexure P-2), the Commissioner accepted the appeal, however, remanded the matter to the District Collector, while noticing certain ambiguities, as reflected in para-6 of the order of the Commissioner. The petitioner filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar. Civil Writ Petition No.10602 of 2010 2 2 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Financial Commissioner, at best, could have set aside order (Annexure P-2), passed by the Commissioner, and directed the Commissioner to adjudicate on the issue and pass an order. The Financial Commissioner, however, could not have directed appointed of respondent No.4 as Lambardar, which would be within the domain of powers of the District Collector. 3 Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has not been able to justify appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 4 The order under challenge before the Financial Commissioner at the instance of the petitioner, was an order of remand by the Commissioner to the District Collector. Either the order could be upheld or set aside. At best, the Financial Commissioner could have asked the Commissioner to adjudicate on the issue and pass a final order, after considering the comparative merit of the applicants. Surely, the Financial Commissioner could not have directed appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar because the order impugned before the Financial Commissioner was only in regard to remand of the case. 5 In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Order dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed. The case is remanded back to the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar for re-adjudication, in accordance with law. 6 The parties, through their counsel, are directed to Civil Writ Petition No.10602 of 2010 3 appear before the Commissioner, on 5.5.2011. April 19, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?