SURENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post of Lambardar (General Category) of Village Lad, Tehsil Badhra, District Bhiwani fell vacant on the demise of Ghadsi Ram Lambardar. The process to fill up the vacant post was started by inviting applications through Munadi. The Tehsildar and SDO (Civil), Dadri made recommendation in favour of respondent No.4 to the Collector, Bhiwani. However, the petitioner was chosen by the Collector, inter alia, being the grandson of deceased Lambardar and respondent No.4 could not found favour with him because he had land in Rajasthan due to which he would not be available in the village. The order of the Collector was upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner vide their orders dated 6.9.2010 and 29.9.2011 respectively. Respondent No.4 challenged all the aforesaid orders by way of CWP No.20588 of 2011 which was allowed vide order dated 22.6.2012 and after setting aside all the orders, the matter was remanded back to the District Collector for decision afresh.

(2.) The petitioner challenged the order of the writ court by way of intra Court appeal bearing LPA No.767 of 2012 in which, vide order dated 18.10.2012, the order of the learned Single Judge was modified and in spite of remanding the case back to the District Collector, it was remanded back to the Financial Commissioner for deciding it afresh. After the remand, the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 26.8.2013 allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.4 with the following observation: -

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been appointed by the Collector, whose choice cannot be interfered with until and unless there is any perversity in his order and since there is no perversity, therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal.