MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 17.05.2006 (Annexure P -5) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Ambala and order dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure P -7) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby Manjit Singh -respondent No.3 has been appointed as Lambardar of Village Khan Ahmadpur, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

(2.) FACTS in nutshell are that on the demise of Daulat Singh, Lambardar of village Khan Ahmadpur, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala post of Lambardar fell vacant. The Circle Revenue Officer initiated the proceedings for filling up the said post and got conducted the proclamation and invited applications. In pursuance to proclamation, only one application of respondent No.3 was received. The Circle Revenue Officer recommended the name of respondent No.3 for the post of Lambardar to the SDO(Civil), Ambala. Petitioner -Manmohan Singh appeared before the SDO(Civil), Ambala and submitted that no proclamation was conducted. Thereafter fresh proclamation was conducted in the village. In pursuance of the fresh proclamation 14 candidates submitted their applications to the Tehsildar within the stipulated period. However, later on out of 14 applicants, 11 applicants withdrew their names. The character and antecedents of remaining three candidates were got verified by the Tehsildar from the police and after completing all the formalities, name of petitioner Manmohan Singh was recommended to the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Ambala. The SDO (Civil) did not agree with the recommendation of the Tehsildar and recommended the name of respondent No.3 -Manjit Singh and sent the case to the Collector, Ambala. The Collector after hearing the case of all the parties found the petitioner as a better candidate amongst others and appointed him as Lambardar of the Village vide order dated 09.02.2000 (Annexure P -1). Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the Collector, respondent No.3 and Baldev Singh preferred separate appeals before the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala, who set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case for a fresh decision after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The Collector vide order dated 17.10.2002 (Annexure P -4) appointed petitioner as Lambardar. On appeal filed by respondent No.3, the Commissioner vide order dated 17.05.2006 (Annexure P -5) reversed the order of the Collector and appointed Manjit Singh -respondent No.3 to the post of Lambardar. The petitioner filed revision before the Financial Commissioner against the order of Divisional Commissioner, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure P -7). Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is sketchy and non -speaking. The order has not been passed on merits of the case and the evidence available on record has not been appreciated. It has also not been taken into consideration whether Manmohan Singh had intentionally furnished the certificate of Majhbi Sikh to the Army authorities for selection of his son in the army or it was inadvertently recorded as Majhbi Sikh instead of Jat Sikh. This fact has also not been taken into account by the Financial Commissioner that Manjit Singh is in illegal possession of Gurdwara land and he is not paying any rent. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 -Manjit Singh is also defaulter of the lai/mai loan for ten years and as such he could not be considered suitable for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The aforestated position has not been disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.3.