MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order proposes to decide two identical writ petitions bearing CWP No. 2949 of 2011 (Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana and others) and CWP No. 6731 of 2011 (Gian Chand v. State of Haryana and others), both having been filed against the same impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner, thereby restoring the order passed by District Collector, Panchkula, appointing respondent Garibu as Lambardar. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the death of Shri Ram Kishan on 14.7.2002, one post of Backward Class Lambardar fell vacant in village Bharoli, Tehsil and District, Panchkula. Proceedings were initiated. Naib Tehsildar as well as Tehsildar recommended the name of respondent Garibu for appointment to the post of Lambardar, whereas Sub-Divisional Officer recommended the name of Mohan Lal petitioner, for appointment as Lambardar. However, after closely examining the comparative merits of the candidates, District Collector, Panchkula, vide his order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) appointed Garibu-respondent as Lambardar. Two appeals were filed before the Commissioner by the petitioners Mohan Lal and Gian Chand. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, allowed the appeal of Mohan Lal petitioner and dismissed the appeal of Gian Chand. While setting aside the order of District Collector, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, appointed Mohan Lal-petitioner as Lambardar. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner, Gian Chand-petitioner as well as respondent Garibu approached the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated 31.2.2012 (Annexure P-4) petition filed by Gian Chand was dismissed. However, while setting aside the order of Commissioner, Ambala Division, Financial Commissioner restored the order of District Collector, Panchkula, thereby upholding the appointment of respondent Garibu as Lambardar.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved against the above-said order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Mohan Lal-petitioner has filed CWP No. 2949 of 2011, whereas petitioner Gian Chand has challenged all the three orders passed by the revenue authorities by way of separate writ petition bearing CWP No. 6731 of 2011. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply was filed by respondent No. 3-Gian Chand, whereas no reply was filed to the second writ petition filed by Gian Chand.