SURJEET SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner whereby revision filed by the petitioner, impugned the order dated 04.09.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, has been dismissed, being time barred.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Sheo Narayan, Lambardar (SC) of village Dhani Chand Nagar, applications were invited from the interested persons by making proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. In furtherance of the proclamation, 6 candidates submitted their applications out of which 3 candidates did not appear and ultimately, the petitioner, respondent No.2 and Ashok were left in fray. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found respondent No.2-Jai Bhagwan to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 28.06.2011, appointed him Lambardar of the village. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, who set aside the order dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Collector and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision, vide order dated 01.12.2011 (Annexure P- 3). Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed petition before respondent No.1 impugning the order dated 01.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) and respondent No.1 vide order dated 31.10.2012, remanded the matter to the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division with a direction to decide the case on merits. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon proceeded with the matter and vide order dated 04.09.2014 (Annexure P- 4) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision before respondent No.1 who has dismissed the same being time barred vide impugned order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure P-5). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had to go out of station for his personal urgent work in the month of December, 2014 and returned in the month of May, 2015, therefore, he could not file revision before respondent No.1 well in time.