HARVINDER SINGH Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the process for appointment of Lambardar was initiated owing to the post of Lambardar having fallen vacant. Many persons including the petitioner and respondent No. 3 applied for the post of Lambardar. The petitioner is stated to be 32 years of age, passed 9th class, owns 14 acres of land and had personal influence of having 150 persons supported, much less small saving amounting to Rs. 3,30,000/-, whereas, respondent No.3 is 48 years of age, passed 9th class and less agricultural holding. The Collector, vide order dated 01.02.2012, did not accept the contention of the petitioner and appointed respondent No.3 as Lambardar. Before the Commissioner, an effort was made to see the record, whereby, Certificate of Matric produced by respondent No.3 of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag Allahabad was found fake as in this regard, no evidence was brought on record. In view of the aforementioned, the Commissioner, vide order dated 26.09.2012, set aside the appointment of the private respondent and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed.

(2.) The revision preferred before the Financial Commissioner has been decided in a most sketchy and erroneous manner, whereby, he has relied upon the fact that respondent is 9th class pass while setting aside the order of the Commissioner by taking eligible criteria as 8th standard pass. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 24.12013 and the subsequent order thereto, whereby, the petitioner is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for summoning the witnesses from the concerned department to check veracity/genuineness of the document.

(3.) He further submits that conduct of candidate is to be seen in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Man Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others 2000(2) PLJ 568.