VINOD KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though Collector vide order dated 02.03.2016 after considering all the points recommended the case of the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar but the Commissioner in appeal taken by Hukam Singh set aside the order by taking into consideration the fact which cannot be considered for disqualification vis-a-vis the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his father have been acquitted. Any of the act of the family members cannot be considered for disqualification. Revision preferred before the Financial Commissioner is bereft of any reasoning and has drawn the attention of this Court to the aforementioned findings.

(3.) On the contrary, Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 submits that certificate of birth placed on record on behalf of mother of the petitioner showing that she is falling within the age group of drawing the pension, had been prepared now, whereas Commissioner had taken into consideration the voter list of 2015, whereby her age was found to be 52 years.