LPA No.975 of 2009(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.975 of 2009(O&M) Date of Order: 6.10.2009 Tehal Singh ...Appellant Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J The instant appeal is filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging order dated 27.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the appointment of respondent No.4. The issue, which was belatedly raised before the appellate authority namely Commissioner and Financial Commissioner was not agitated before the Collector that respondent No.4, who is elder brother of the appellant, had filed application for consideration of his name for appointment as Lambardar beyond the prescribed date. Learned Single Judge has rejected the aforesaid argument by observing that such an argument should have been raised at the first stage. In any case, once the appointment has been ratified by the Collector LPA No.975 of 2009(O&M) #2# himself, the acceptance of application beyond a particular date did not make any difference as the cases of the appellant and that of respondent No.4 have been considered on merit. At best, it can be considered as an irregularity, which would not affect the appointment. Dismissed. In view of the fact that we have dismissed the appeal on merit, we are not inclined to pass any order on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE October 06, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE