ANANT RAM 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 31.12.2009 (Annexure P -1) passed by respondent no.3 -Collector, Karnal whereby respondent no.4 -Kaptan Singh has been appointed Lambardar of village Kalheri, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal and orders dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P -2) and 11.11.2013 (Annexure P -5) whereby appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by respondent no.2 - Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and respondent no.1 -Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respectively.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of resignation of Bal Kishan, Lambardar (General) of village Kalheri, Tehsil & District Karnal, 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, 18 persons including the petitioner and respondents no.4 to 8 applied for the post of Lambardar out of which seven were left in the fray. The Assistant Collector -IInd Grade recommended the name of respondent no.5 -Parveen Kumar for the post of Lambardar. However, the Assistant Collector -Ist Grade recommended the name of respondent no.4 -Kaptan Singh. 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 31.12.2009 (Annexure P -1). Against that, the petitioner and respondents no.5 and 8 filed three separate appeals before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P -2). Against that, the petitioner and respondents no.5 and 8 also filed three separate revisions before the Financial Commissioner which have been dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P -3). Aggrieved against the order dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P -3), the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2012 (Annexure P -4). A relevant extract of order dated 30.07.2012 reads as under:

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