IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7651 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 02, 2011 Narender Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. J.V. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Relevant portion of impugned order dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, reads as under:- “After going through the facts and record of the case and also orders dated 6.2.2007 passed by the District Collector and order dated 24.12.09 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, I tend to agree with the findings of the Divisional Commissioner that neither of the two candidates, namely; Shri Rakesh Kumar or Shri Narender Kumar is suitable for appointment as Lambardar. Although Shri Narender Kumar has been acquitted in appeal but his conduct cannot be considered above board because he took admission in B.Ed. course on the basis of a forged certificate knowing fully well that he was not a Graduate and hence not qualified to seek admission. He has been let off by the Additional District & Sessions Judge on technical grounds. On the other hand, Shri Rakesh Kumar has used derogatory and casteist remarks CWP No.7651 of 2011 [2] against the woman Sarpanch of village. Someone who cannot respect a woman who is an elected representative does not deserve to be appointed as Lambardar. Accordingly, I dismiss the revision petition upholding the decision dated 24.12.2009 in appeal passed by the Divisional Commissioner and direct Collector, Mohindergarh to invite applications afresh for appointment of Lambardar after observing due procedure to have a wider choice of a suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar. 2. Learned counsel contends that on acquittal of the petitioner, the fact or circumstance could not be considered against the petitioner. 3. I have considered the contention of learned counsel. 4. A person with clean record and good character is required to be appointed as Lambardar who would command respect of the residents in the Estate so as to discharge functions as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. The nature of allegations against the petitioner were that he took admission in B.Ed. course on the basis of a forged certificate, fully knowing that he was not a graduate and therefore, was not qualified to seek admission. Although petitioner has been acquitted, however, for quite a length of time, criminal proceedings were pending against him in trial. In such circumstances, apprehension of the Financial Commissioner, that residents of the village would not have due regard for the CWP No.7651 of 2011 [3] petitioner so as to give him information as required in discharge of functions by a Lambardar, cannot be said to be without reasonable basis. 5. No ground for judicial review of the impugned order in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out, in so much as, the Financial Commissioner has directed invitation of fresh applications for appointment of a Lambardar. 6. The effect of the impugned order is that petitioner and the private respondent have been found to be eligible, however, not suitable to serve as Lambardar. Impugned order dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) cannot be termed as illegal so as to call for interference. 8. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) May 02, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?