LPA. No.481 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA. No.481 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.4.2010 Pradeep Kumar -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:-Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, upholding the order of Financial Commissioner, remanding the matter to the Collector for considering application of the contesting respondent for appointment as Lambardar. 2. The appellant was appointed as Lambardar against which the contesting respondent No.4 filed appeal alleging that his case was not considered. Thereafter, the matter was put up before the Financial Commissioner, who held that the case of the contesting respondent No.4 should have been considered. This view has been upheld by the leanred Single Judge. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant was the only eligible candidate and thus, the contesting respondent No.4 had no right to be considered. LPA. No.481 of 2010 -2- 5. We are unable to accept this submission. Finding recorded by the Financial Commissioner is to the following effect:- "After hearing both the parties and going through the record carefully, I am of the view that in this case a number of applications were not considered for the post on ground of delay in receipt of application. While the case was being proceeded by Tehsildar, he should have instead of rejecting the application on technical ground, considered all of them and recommended the best suitable person for the post in this case, particularly the petitioner had made an application well in time and his application should not have been rejected on ground of delay". The above finding was upheld by the learned Single Judge, as follows:- "Therefore, it cannot be said that Ashok Kumar (respondent No.4) remained dormant or did not agitate his claim. The fact that he staked his claim before the SDO (Civil)/Assistant Collector First Grade and urged that no proclamation had been made in the village would show that he had assailed the matter regarding his claim not being considered and being proceeded against ex parte". 6. In view of above, it cannot be held that the appellant was the only eligible candidate. Claim of the respondent No.4 was LPA. No.481 of 2010 -3- required to be considered as held by the Financial Commissioner and learned Single Judge. 7. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 19, 2010 (ALOK SINGH ) akm JUDGE