ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the death of Lambardar of Village Lukhi, process to appoint the Lambardar in the village was commenced. The petitioner, who is son of deceased Lambardar, was one of the applicants.

(2.) Assistant Collector IInd Grade recommended the name of respondent No.6. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, however, recommended the name of the petitioner, he being more suitable. As per the petitioner, though he was more meritorious, but the Collector decided to appointment respondent No.6 as Lambardar on 28.8.2008. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the Commissioner, Gurgaon. The Commissioner, after comparing the merit of the respective candidates, set-aside the appointment of respondent No.6 and remanded the case to the Collector for appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. Respondent No.6 filed a revision against this order before the Financial Commissioner. He remanded the case to the Commissioner for deciding it afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties. The Commissioner again considered the merits and demerits of the candidates and set-aside the order passed by the Collector with further direction to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar on 13.3.2011. Thereafter, the Collector issued Sanad in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.6, however, filed a revision against the order and the Financial Commissioner has set-aside the order passed by the Commissioner and has further upheld the order passed by the Collector. The petitioner accordingly has impugned the order passed by the Financial Commissioner through the present writ petition.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Financial Commissioner was not justified in interfering the well reasoned and well considered order passed by the Commissioner. As per the counsel, the order passed by the Collector was without considering the merits of the candidates properly and as such, was rightly interfered with by the Commissioner. The counsel has made reference in detail to the observations made by the Commissioner to substantiate his submissions made before the Court.