MUNSHI RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned orders dated 1.8.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the order dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, thereby upholding the order dated 14.6.2011 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned District Collector, Mewat (Nuh), appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the above said impugned orders. Petitioner further seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus for his appointment as Lambardar by restoration of the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the learned Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Nuh, recommending the name of the petitioner for the post of Lambardar. Facts first. One post of Lambardar became available on account of death of Sh. Mitar Singh Lambardar of village Gangoli, Tehsil Nuh. Learned Assistant Collector 2 nd Grade, Nuh, initiated the process for filling up the post of Lambardar, as per the procedure prescribed. The requisite proclamation was got conducted in the village inviting applications from the eligible candidates. Only two candidates applied i.e. petitioner and respondent No.4. After giving due opportunity of being heard to both the candidates, Assistant Collector 2 nd Grade, Nuh, vide his report dated 12.9.2008, made his recommendation in favour of respondent No.4, for appointment to the post of Lambardar. However, learned Assistant Collector 1 st Grade Nuh, vide his report dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), made his recommendation in favour of the petitioner. Ultimately, after considering the comparative merits of both the candidates, learned District Collector, Mewat (Nuh), found that respondent No.4 was the most suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar and accordingly, vide his order dated 14.6.2011 (Annexure P-2), he appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar.

(2.) Dissatisfied with the above said order, petitioner filed his appeal before the learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon but the same did not find favour with the learned Commissioner, who dismissed it vide order dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, petitioner filed his revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who dismissed the same, vide impugned order dated 1.8.2012 (Annexure P-5).

(3.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging all the above said three orders, by way of instant petition. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.