AMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner and 23.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) by the Collector whereby respondent No. 4-Jagbir Singh had been appointed as Lambardar.

(2.) The contention of Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that on account of vacancy for the post of Lambardar, many candidates including the petitioner had applied. The petitioner is young, energetic, educated and actively participated in the activities for the welfare of the people of the village, motivated people for doing small savings, participated in cleanliness mission, literacy mission and polio eradication mission. He owns 16 acres of land which is more than the adequate security for the post. He had past experience and had been performing as Sarbarah Lambardar. He was recommended by the present and ex-Sarpanches yet the Collector did not find favour. The Commissioner in appeal extensively and in detail found that the petitioner was most suitable candidate. It was also noticed that the Collector had not acceded to the request of the petitioner for adjournment on account of non-availability of the counsel.

(3.) He also relied upon the unreported judgments of this Court passed in CWP No. 9326 of 2016 on 15.12.2016 titled as Mohinder Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Harayana and others ; Ram Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others passed in LPA No. 2157 of 2013 on 28.04.2014 and Shri @ Siri Niwas v. State of Haryana and others passed in CWP No. 7536 of 2011 on 20.03.2013 to contend that the case of theft of electricity would not be a ground for disqualification for appointment of Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner could not have set aside the order. At the best, he could have remanded the matter to the Collector to redetermine the controversy.