MAM RAJ Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against the order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.1734 of 2014) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, Kaithal, appointing Kulbir Singh (respondent No.3 herein) as Lambardar of village Narwal, Tehsil Rajound, District Kaithal, and order 19.02.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, upholding the aforesaid order of the Collector, has been dismissed.

(2.) Though there is delay of 10 days in filing the instant appeal and the appellant has filed an application (CM No. 956-LPA of 2015) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits and have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) Undisputedly, in the present case, name of respondent No.3 was recommended by the subordinate revenue officers, for appointment as Lambardar of village Narwal, after making thorough enquiry of all the eligible applicants in the village. On the basis of that recommendation, Collector, Kaithal, after examining the entire record and considering the comparative qualifications as well as merits of all the candidates, appointed respondent No.3 as Lambardar of the village, vide order dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P-3). On appeal filed by the appellant, the said order was set aside by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, vide order dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure P-5), and the appellant was appointed as Lambardar of the village, while observing as under :- "I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts on record. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on the perusal of facts on record, I have reached on a conclusion that the age of the appellant Mam Raj is 52 years and he is B.A. LLB passed. The appellant Mam Raj has 22 kanal land and he is an ex-serviceman. On the contrary, the respondent is 26 years old and is 10+2 class passed and he has 9 kanal 16 marls of land. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant Mam Raj is more suitable than the respondent Kulbir Singh in every manner. The Collector is not bound to consider the recommendation of the lower revenue officers during the appointment of a lambardar."