CWP No.24318 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.24318 of 2011 Date of decision:23.12.2011 Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Pankaj Maini, Advocate for the petitioner. G.S.SANDHAWALIA J.(ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2011, Annexure P7 wherein respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lamberdar of Village Mussa Khera, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lamberdar by the Collector on 09.06.2005 over and above Sukhdev Singh, respondent No.4. Sukhdev Singh had un-successfully challenged the said orders of the Collector, before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. Eventually, Sukhdev Singh filed CWP No.19514 of 2009 wherein following order was passed on 07.12.2010: “RAJIVE BHALLA, J (ORAL) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 09.06.2005, 18.04.2007 and 29.03.2009, passed by the District Collector, Fatehabad, the Commissioner, Hisar Division Hisar and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, respectively. Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial CWP No.24318 of 2011 2 Commissioner could not have considered the sub- community of respondent No.4 as a relevant factor while appointing him as a Lambardar. It is however, prayed that instead of remanding the matter to the Collector, it may be remitted to the Financial Commissioner to consider the legality of the order passed by the Collector after excluding reference to the sub community of respondent no.4. In view of the statements made by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order dated 29.03.2009, is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner to reconsider the merits of the parties after disregarding the sub community of respondent No.4 and appoint the best candidate to the post of the Lambardar of village Mussa Khera, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh on 25.01.2011, who shall decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law within three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. This order shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion for or against the parties. 07.12.2010 Sd/- Rajive Bhalla, Judge” In pursuance of the said order passed by this Court, the Financial Commissioner has allowed the revision petition of Sukhdev Singh, respondent No.4 and appointed him as Lamberdar. The reasoning given by the Financial Commissioner which has prevailed over the merits of the petitioner is that Sukhdev Singh is younger by 4 years and has an educational qualification of 12th Class pass in comparison to the petitioner who is only 10th Class pass. Sukhdev Singh also owns 256 kanals of land over 124 Kanals 5 marlas owned by the petitioner. CWP No.24318 of 2011 3 Another major factor which has prevailed with the Financial Commissioner while allowing the revision petition is that Ashok Kumar, petitioner has constructed a house in Tohana and would not be available for the assistance of villagers, though the petitioner has stated that the house is only for better education of the children and he continues his interest with the land of the village. Accordingly, the impugned order had been passed. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Financial Commissioner could not have reviewed his earlier order whereby his appointment as Lamberdar has been up-held. This contention is without any basis, as admittedly, in the earlier litigation between the parties, vide orders dated 07.12.2010 which have been reproduced above, the parties agreed that the matter should be reconsidered by the Financial Commissioner, after comparing the merits of both the contenders. Accordingly, the said orders had been passed by the Financial Commissioner. The reasoning given by the Financial Commissioner cannot be held to be perverse or that warranting interference in writ jurisdiction by this Court. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 23.12.2011 sailesh