LAKHWINDER 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 order dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure P -2) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala whereby order dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure P -3) appointing the petitioner as Lambardar has been set aside and the order dated 28.03.2012 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby revision filed by the petitioner against impugned the order dated 20.07.2011 has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of resignation of Sadhu Ram Lambardar (Backward Class), of village Mohanpur, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, applications were invited from the interested persons by making proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. In furtherance of proclamation, interested candidates submitted their applications and ultimately the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were left in fray. Tehsildar, Pehowa recommended the name of the petitioner, however, SDO (C), Pehowa recommended the name of respondent No. 4. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found petitioner -Lakhwinder Singh to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure P -3) appointed him as Lambardar. Against that, respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure P -2) and order dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Collector appointing the petitioner as Lambardar has been set aside. Against that, the petitioner also preferred revision before the Financial Commissioner which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.03.2012 (Annexure P -1). Hence, instant writ petition.

(2.) In pursuance of notice of motion, respondent No. 4 filed written statement with the averments that respondent No. 4 is the son of Ex -Lambardar i.e. Sadhu Ram on whose resignation, the post became vacant and respondent No. 4 is acquainted with the duties of Lambardar. The Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar without considering the fact that SDO (C) had recommended the name of respondent No. 4 and petitioner has faced the criminal trial.

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