PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby three different RORs bearing Nos.8, 9 & 10 of 2013-14 have been dismissed. The revision bearing ROR No.8 of 2014 titled as "Surinder Kumar v. Puran Chand" filed at the instance of private respondent No.4, which is relevant for the adjudication of the present writ petition, has been allowed and the order dated 19.12.2013 of the Commissioner setting aside the order of the Collector, in respect of filling up the post of Lambardar, has been set aside.

(2.) Mr. Chankaya Pandit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the post of Lambardar of Village Labkari, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, having been fallen vacant, the petitioner along with other persons had applied for the post of the Lambardar in respect of General Category. The Collector vide order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-3), on the basis of the recommendations of the Assistant Collector Grade-I, appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. However, the Commissioner vide order dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure P-4) remanded the matter back on three grounds, i) inter se merit of the parties was not looked into; ii) legal possession of the petitioner and iii) availability of better educated candidate. However, the aforementioned order had been assailed before the Financial Commissioner, who has by relying upon the order dated 17.08.1994 (Annexure P-2) found that the petitioner had been in illegal occupation of the land in the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the 1961 Act') as applicable to the State of Haryana, whereas on going through the record, there is no such order of eviction/imposition of penalty, thus, there is a misrepresentation, much less, misdirection and urges this Court for setting aside the impugned order, under challenge.

(3.) Mr. Aman Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that the order of the Collector cannot be tinkered with, until and unless it is found to be erroneous and perverse. The petitioner has not able to point out the aforementioned aspect and therefore, rightly so, the Financial Commissioner/respondent No.1 while exercising the jurisdiction allowed the ROR, aforementioned, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the present writ petition.