RAJ KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE post of Lambardar (General Category) of village Bahmanwala, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, fell vacant on account of death of Kundan Lal. In order to fill up the said vacancy, applications were invited. After processing the applications, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ratia, vide his order dated 09.03.2004, recommended name of the petitioner to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade who also recommended the name of the petitioner on 31.03.2004, but the Collector, Fatehabad, appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar vide his order dated 29.07.2004, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal. His appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, on 26.11.2007 and the case was remanded back to the Collector. After the remand, the Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 29.07.2008. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 4 before the Commissioner, who again remanded the matter back to the Collector on 28.11.2008. The Collector, after remand, appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar vide his order dated 13.01.2009, but the said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the Commissioner, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Collector on 19.05.2009. After the remand, the Collector again considered the case of the parties and vide his order dated 09.07.2009, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. This order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by way of appeal before the Commissioner, but it was dismissed on 08.09.2009. Respondent No. 4 filed revision before respondent No. 1, which has been allowed vide his order dated 03.03.2013, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent No. 1 has wrongly recorded a finding that the petitioner is not residing in the village. He has made a reference to various documents, mentioned in the writ petition, to contend that the said documents amply prove that the petitioner is the resident of the village and not the town of Ratia. He further submitted that respondent No. 4 has been involved in the theft of electricity and could not have been chosen as the headman of the village.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 also analysed the report of the Tehsildar in the context of impartiality and observed as under: