CWP No.6023 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.6023 of 2010 Date of Decision: 4.5.2010 Gulab Rai .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the caveator-respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.1.2010, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, reversing the order dated 26.5.2009, passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and restoring the order dated 21.1.2009, passed by the Collector. The petitioner and respondent no.4 applied for the post of a backward Class Lambardar of Village Chhapri, Tehsil Shahbad, District Kurukshetra. The Collector directed the appointment of Kehar Singh, respondent no.4, after holding that he is the better candidate. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner by holding that the petitioner is the more meritorious candidate. Aggrieved by this order, Kehar Singh, respondent no.4 filed a revision. The Financial Commissioner CWP No.6023 of 2010 2 accepted the revision, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and restored the order passed by the Collector. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of Kehar Singh, respondent no.4 is perverse and arbitrary, as the Collector has ignored the registration of an FIR No.703 under Section 61-1-14 of the Punjab Excise Act on 29.9.1997. Another major demerit is that as respondent no.4 is a sewadar in a Mandir, situated at a distance of 10 kms. from the village, he would not be easily available to the residents of the village. The Financial Commissioner has neither adverted to nor considered these facts, which, if taken into consideration, would disentitle respondent no.4 to the appointment as the Lambardar. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold that the Collector or the Financial Commissioner have committed any error of jurisdiction, as would require interference. Admittedly, FIR No.703 was registered in the year 1997 and was withdrawn without investigation, without a challan or without any trial. The FIR, therefore, cannot be pressed into service against respondent no.4. The plea that respondent no.4 is not available in the village has not been established by any clear or cogent evidence. Offering sewa at a temple would not raise an inference of employment or that respondent no.4 would not be available to the public at large. No merit. Dismissed. 4.5.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE