MURARI LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant prays that order dated 02.01.2012, allowing the writ petition, filed by respondent no.4, setting aside orders passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, may be set aside.

(2.) The Collector, after due consideration of the merits and demerits of candidates, appointed Umed Singh, respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, which was allowed by holding that as Umed Singh is working at a Stone Crusher in Sohana, he would not be available in the village and is, therefore, ineligible for appointment to the post of Lambardar and appointed Murari Lal but, while doing so, failed to notice that Murari Lal's candidature was rejected by the Collector as he held a voter identity card in the village and also in Rewari and is a resident of Rewari. The Financial Commissioner, dismissed the revision filed by Umed Singh, respondent no.4. The writ petition filed by Umed Singh has been allowed and order passed by the Collector has been restored.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submits that as the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner concurrently held that the appellant is the best candidate, their findings should not have been set aside by the writ Court. It is further argued that as the learned Single Judge had not dealt with facts, the appellant filed a review application, which was dismissed without considering the merits. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge has not considered the criteria for selection set out in Rule 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, thereby rendering the impugned order null and void. The merits of the appellant particularly his claim arising from the fact that his father had served in the Army has been ignored. The learned Single Judge has also ignored the fact that the Financial Commissioner has recorded a finding of fact that the appellant is residing at Sohana and not merely working at a stone crusher at Sohana. The appellant's plea that his name was deleted from the voter's list of Rewari long before the matter came up for consideration has also been ignored.