DULI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order, Annexures P9 whereby respondent no. 2 was ordered to be appointed as Lambardar of the village in place of petitioner.

(2.) Brief factual background of the case is that after death of Lambardar of village Bata, process for fresh appointment was initiated. After considering relative merits and demerits of candidates, Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 25.01.2010. Aggrieved, respondent no. 2 preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon, who vide his order dated 14.09.2010 allowed the appeal and appointed respondent no. 2 as Lambardar of the village. Said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the revisional authority. Petitioner preferred CWP No. 5429 of 2011 before this court. This court set-aside the order passed by the revenue authorities and remanded the matter to District Collector for decision afresh after taking into consideration the provisions of Lambardari Rules. Order passed by Single Judge of this court was challenged by petitioner as well as by respondent no. 2 in LPA No. 625 of 2012 and LPA No. 865 of 2012. A plea was raised before the court that instead of remitting the matter to Collector, it should be remitted to Financial Commissioner, Haryana. Said appeals were clubbed together. Vide its order dated September 28, 2012, Division Bench of this court modified the order of Single Judge and remitted the matter to Financial Commissioner to decide the same in accordance with law. The parties, thereafter, appeared before the said authority through their counsel. After considering rival contentions, Financial Commissioner directed respondent no. 2 be appointed as Lambardar as he was found more suitable candidate.

(3.) Order has been assailed before this court on the ground that authority below has committed a grave error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is 12th pass whereas respondent no. 2 is not even a matriculate. According to him, respondent no. 2 has encroached upon a piece of land owned by Gram Panchayat. Petitioner was, thus, only suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar. He submits that impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be set-aside.