LALIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the orders dated 16.07.2013 (Annexure P-2) and dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by Commissioner and District Collector respectively, appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) It is a matter of record and not in dispute that when the candidature of the candidates, including that of the petitioner, was being considered for appointment to the post of Lambardar in the village of the parties, petitioner was serving in a private company. This was one of the reasons, which rightly weighed with the District Collector to appoint respondent No.5 as Lambardar, because she will be available to the residents of the village throughout the day. Since the petitioner has been working in a private concern, he will not be 1 of 5 available in the village as and when his services were required by the villagers. Petitioner was not rightly appointed as Lambardar, because he would have been an absentee Lambardar. When confronted with this undisputed fact situation obtaining on the record, learned counsel for the petitioner had no answer and rightly so, it being a matter of record. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that learned District Collector committed no error of law, while passing the impugned order dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure P-1), appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village.