BALDEV SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, whose claim was considered and rejected by all the three authorities, has filed the above writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) After taking us through the orders passed by the authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not heard by the Financial Commissioner i.e. first respondent herein and he may be given an opportunity to put forth his stand.

(3.) After going through the order of the original authority as well as subsequent orders of the appellate and revisional authorities, we are unable to accede to the request of the petitioner. The matter relates to the appointment of a Lambardar. The applications of the petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 to 6 were considered by the third respondent. The order dated 19.3.2007 of the third respondent shows that all the applicants were heard. Their record and antecedents were considered. After analysis of the relevant material, the Collector has preferred fourth respondent as according to him he is more popular in the villager and extending his service to the society while doing work of the development of the School as a member of the School Development Committee. He also stated that his claim has been recommended by Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Bathinda. After considering the above additional factors, the Collector preferred fourth respondent and selected him as Lambardar.