PHOOL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present appeal, the appellant is assailing order dated 19.1.2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, disturbing the order of the Collector, whereby the petitioner was appointed as Lamberdar of the village.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case are that office of Lambardar of Village Mauza Chatia Aulia, Tehsil and District Sonepat, fell vacant on the death of the then Lambardar, Amar Dass. Applications were invited from all eligible and interested persons for appointment as Lambardar. Eight persons gave applications but except the petitioner and respondent No. 4, remaining candidates withdrew their applications. The Collector, Sonepat after discussing the inter se merit of the petitioner and respondent No. 4, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the Village on 22.3.2007. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, Ludhiana Division, Ludhiana. He set aside the order passed by the Collector and appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. The said order was challenged before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who dismissed the revision petition on 2.1.2009.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and others 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 757 : 2009(1) R.A.J. 442 : 2009(3) 439. Hon the Apex Court in Mahavir Singh's case (supra) has placed reliance on the matter of Lila Ram v. Asa Ram, [1995 Lahore Law Times 29] in which the Lahore High Court had observed as under :-