ANOOP 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 19.09.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3-Collector, Rewari whereby respondent No. 4-Rajender Singh has been appointed Lambardar of village Bhagwanpur and orders dated 22.08.2013 (Annexure P-2) and 04.03.2014 (Annexure P-3) whereby appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by respondent No. 2-Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and respondent No. 1-Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respectively. Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Sardar Singh, Lambardar (Harijan) of village Bhagwanpur, District Rewari, applications were invited from interested persons by making publication/proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. In response to the proclamation, six persons including the petitioner and respondent No. 4 applied for the post of Lambardar out of which petitioner, respondent No. 2 and one Om Parkash were left in the fray as remaining were proceeded against ex parte. The Assistant Collector-IInd Grade and Assistant Collector-Ist Grade, Rewari recommended the name of respondent No. 4-Rajender Singh for the post of Lambardar. After completion of all the formalities, matter came up for consideration before the Collector. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village vide impugned order dated 19.09.2012 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved against the order of the Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2-Com-missioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, who dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 22.08.2013 (Annexure P-2). Against that, the petitioner preferred revision before respondent No. 1-Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure P-3). Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that Below Poverty Line (BPL) Card has been wrongly issued in favour of respondent No. 4 despite the fact that he owns some land and is financially independent. Respondent No. 4 is having five children. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No. 4, therefore, impugned orders may be set aside.