SUNIL KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The office of Lambardar (General Category) of village Hindol, District Bhiwani fell vacant on 04.04.2007 on the death of Raghbir Singh. Process to fill up the vacancy was started by issuing proclamation. 4 applications were received by the Assistant Collector 2 nd Grade who recommended the name of respondent no.4 who was appointed by the Collector as Lambardar on 01.12.2009. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his appointment before the Commissioner as his revision was dismissed on 28.05.2010 and also by the Financial Commissioner on 06.09.2011.

(2.) The only issue raised by the petitioner in this case is that he is a law graduate, whereas respondent no.4 is 7 th class pass and there has been an amendment in the Rules whereby preference has to be given to a candidate who is middle class pass.

(3.) Counsel for respondent no.4 has submitted that the petitioner is a practicing advocate in the District Courts at Bhiwani and would not be available for performance of the duties of the Lambardar as enshrined in Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable to Haryana) [hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"]. He further submitted that availability of the Lambardar in the village is most essential which cannot be compromised because of the reason that the petitioner happens to be a law graduate.