Letter Patent Appeal No.313 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letter Patent Appeal No.313 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:22nd July, 2011 Daljeet Singh .......Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) Civil Misc. No. 843 of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. stands disposed of accordingly. Main case In this appeal, a post of Lambardar reserved for the backward class candidates, in village Abholi, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa, Letter Patent Appeal No.313 of 2011(O&M) 2 is in dispute. The appellant and the respondent No. 3 were the contesting candidates. Respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Lambardar of the village by the Collector. Aggrieved by that order, appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, who dismissed the same. Against that order appellant filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana who allowed the same and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh decision. On reappraisal, the Collector again appointed the respondent No. 3 as Lambardar of the village. Aggrieved by that order the appellant went in appeal before the Commissioner who dismissed the same. Thereafter, appellant availed an opportunity to file a revision before the Financial Commissioner who after appreciating the evidence available on record, set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, and by taking note of a fact that the appellant was more educated, appointed him as Lambardar of the village. Respondent No. 3 challenged that order by filing CWP No. 18331 of 2007 which was allowed vide the impugned judgment in this appeal. The learned Single judge has taken note of a fact that when a vacancy of the Lambardar was notified in the village, the appellant was practising as an Advocate. He got his licence cancelled only in the year 2006. It shows the eagerness of the appellant, to get the post of a Lambardar he can even go to the extent of surrendering his licence of Letter Patent Appeal No.313 of 2011(O&M) 3 an Advocate. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference. Learned Single Judge is perfectly justified in passing the order under challenge. Dismissed. [JASBIR SINGH] JUDGE [AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH] JUDGE 22nd July, 2011 Shivani Kaushik