OM PARKASH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 5.4.2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Jhajjar, order dated 11.12.2002 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and order dated 25.5.2004 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that on the death of Man Singh, Lambardar of Village Lumbaheri, Tehsil and District Jhajjar proceedings for filing up the vacancy of Lambardar were initiated and applications were invited. In response thereto, the petitioner as well as Rajbir Singh- respondent No. 2 applied for the same. The Collector after considering the respective merits of both the candidates appointed Rajbir Singh-respondent No. 2 as Lambardar of the village being more meritorious viz-a-viz the petitioner vide order dated 5.4.2002. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Collector filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2002. The revision petition filed against the order of the Commissioner was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 25.5.2004. Being aggrieved with the orders passed by the authorities below, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the orders passed by authorities below, we are of the view that the Collector has passed a detailed speaking order, wherein, merits of both the candidates have been discussed and respondent No. 2 has been appointed as Lambardar of the village. The order of the Collector has been affirmed by the Commissioner as by the Financial Commissioner, Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that the choice of the Collector is perverse in any manner or is violative of any rules. It has also been held by this Court in Jog Dhian v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and other, 2005(1) RCR(Civil) 658 : (2005-2) 140 PLR 306 that the choice of the Collector must be regarded and considered as final unless the same is against the rules or is perverse.