ATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure P -3) passed by respondent No. 1 -Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby orders dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure P -1) and 26.03.2013 (Annexure P -2) passed by respondent No. 3 -District Collector, Yamunanagar and respondent No. 2 -Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, respectively, appointing petitioner -Attar Singh as Lambardar, have been set aside and respondent No. 4 -Udham Singh has been appointed as Lambardar.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are to the effect that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Banwari Lal, Lambardar (General) of village Hafizpur, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, applications were invited from the interested persons by making proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. In furtherance of proclamation, 13 candidates submitted their applications out of which 11 candidates withdrew their applications and ultimately, two candidates i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 4 remained in fray. Naib Tehsildar, Mustafabad and Sub Divisional Magistrate recommended the name of petitioner for the post of Lambardar. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found petitioner -Attar Singh to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure P -1) appointed him as Lambardar of the village. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 4 filed appeal before respondent No. 2 -Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala which has been dismissed vide order dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure P -2). Thereafter, respondent No. 4 filed revision before respondent No. 1 -Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 4 and appointed him as Lambardar and set aside the orders dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure P -1) and 26.03.2013 (Annexure P -2) passed by respondent No. 3 -District Collector, Yamunanagar and respondent No. 2 -Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, respectively. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that after considering the comparative merits of the candidates and recommendations made by the Naib Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate, respondent No. 3 -District Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. The choice made by the Collector cannot be set aside unless there is perversity or illegality in the order. The father of petitioner is not in unauthorized possession of the Panchayat Land and moreover, the petitioner is residing separately from his father. The illegal possession of his close relative cannot be a disadvantage for the petitioner.