RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoiced extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 19.6.2009 Annexure P-9 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby the Financial Commissioner was pleased to restore order passed by the Collector, Bhiwani, appointing respondent No. 2 as Lambardar of village Pantawas Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani and rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case; inter-alia, are that on the death of Jai Chand, the then Lambardar (Backward) of village Pantawas Kalan, applications were invited through proclamation. Initially only one application was received from the petitioner. However, proclamation was again got done and this time, petitioner, respondent No. 2 and Dharam Singh moved their respective applications for the post of Lambardar. Thereafter, Dharam Singh has withdrawn his candidature in favour of respondent No. 2 -Raghbir Singh. After adopting due procedure and going through the material evidence collected by the Assistant Collector, Second Class, name of respondent No. 2 was recommended by the Assistant Collector, Second Class. The SDM, Dadri having heard both the parties also recommended the name of respondent No. 2. The Collector having heard both the parties vide order dated 23.10.2007 has accepted the recommendations made by the Assistant Collector, First Class as well as Assistant Collector, Second Class and was pleased to appoint respondent No. 2 as Lambardar of the village having held respondent No. 2 is better candidate than the petitioner. Order of the Collector was impugned before the Commissioner, Hisar Divison, Hisar by the petitioner through an appeal. The Commissioner vide order dated 23.1.2009 has held that as per amendment in the Rules, candidate preferably should be 8th standard pass for the post of Lambardar and since both the parties are only 3rd/4th standard pass, therefore, let fresh Munadi be held inviting applications from the eligible candidates. Order of the Commissioner dated 23.1.2009 was challenged by the petitioner as well as by the respondent before the Financial Commissioner. Both the revision petitions were decided by the Financial Commissioner vide impugned judgement dated 19.6.2009 having observed that the amended Rules dated 23.7.2008 whereby qualification for the post of Lambardar, preferably 8th standard pass, is provided, cannot be applied to the pending applications retrospectively. Therefore, order of the Collector appointing respondent No. 2 as Lambardar should be restored.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.