BALWAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post of SC Lambardar of village Chhilarki fell vacant on account of death of Hari Singh Lambardar. After the proclamation, six applications were received to fill up the vacancy out of which four candidates withdrew their applications and only two candidates left in the contest, namely, the petitioner-Balwan Singh and respondent No.4-Raghbir. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Pataudi made recommendation in favour of the petitioner on 9.4.2008. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gurgaon, agreeing with the recommendation of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Pataudi forwarded the case to the District Collector, Gurgaon on 24.7.2008. The District Collector, Gurgaon appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 25.11.2008. The said order was challenged by respondent No.4 before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, who vide his order dated 5.11.2009 set aside the order of the District Collector, Gurgaon and remanded the matter back to him with the direction to enquire into the fact as to whether the petitioner is a resident of village Chhilarki or of Garhi Harsaru. The District Collector, Gurgaon, after obtaining the report, again appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 5.7.2011, which was challenged by respondent No.4 in appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, who vide his order dated 4.4.2012 set aside the said order and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 4.4.2012 by way of ROR No.437 of 2001- 12 before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed on 10.9.2014. The petitioner has thus, challenged the order of the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner in this petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Collector, after enquiry, had found that the petitioner is the resident of village Chhilarki and was suitable for the post of Lambardar being more educated, younger in age and has done cases of family planning. It is further submitted that the choice of the Collector has to be respected and should not be reversed until and unless there is a perversity in his order. It is further submitted that the appellate and revisional authorities have non-suited the petitioner only on the ground that he has been found residing in village Chhilarki, of which the Lambardari is in question, from the last 5-6 months which is not a disqualification.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the character of the petitioner has not been found to be above board by the appellate and revisional authorities as not only it has been found that he had tried to prepare documents for the purpose of showing his residence at village Chhilarki, though he is a permanent resident of Garhi Harsaru but also he wrongly gave his age before the recommending authorities which is borne out from the record. It is also submitted that the appellate authority had found perversity in the order of the Collector and set it aside, therefore, the impugned orders do not call for any interference.