DHARAMPAL SON OF SADHU RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner directing the matter to be remitted to the Collector when earlier decision taken on the basis of resolution of the panchayat was assailed on the ground that the resolution was not genuine. There are other issues also relating to the educational qualification and the property qualification and, therefore, the Financial Commissioner directed that a fresh consideration shall be made taking note of all the objections. The learned counsel wants to rely on the alleged resolution that had been passed by the panchayat recommending the name of the petitioner. When the genuineness of the resolution is in question, the production of a copy before me cannot alter the situation. Same way, when the issue was that he did not have appropriate educational qualification or the property qualification and the objection before the Financial Commissioner was that the Collector had not properly looked into the relevant facts, the Financial Commissioner was within his powers to take a decision afresh and all the relevant parameters that are necessary for consideration for appointment of the Lambardar are duly considered. In the manner of a direction for consideration of the case afresh, it was inevitable that the order that had been already passed directing the appointment of the petitioner was set aside. No error could be seen from the order passed, for, it will be always possible for the petitioner to prove the genuineness and establish the necessary qualification which he claims that he has for appointment to the post of the Lambardar.

(2.) There is no scope for interference. The writ petition ought to fail and it is dismissed as such.