MAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and respondent No. 4 were contenders for the post of village Lambardar. The Collector by his order dated September 12, 1994 selected the petitioner. The fourth respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner. It was accepted. The order passed by the Collector was set aside. The case was remanded for a fresh decision. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner. He filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The revisional authority not only dismissed the revision, but also made an observation that the petitioner having given wrong date of birth was hardly suitable for appointment as a Lambardar. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued.

(3.) MR . C.B. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Financial Commissioner could have at best dismissed the petition. He could not have made observations on merits. On the other hand Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has pointed out that only facts have been mentioned by the Financial Commissioner. The inference therefrom is irresistible and that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.