SUHHASH CHANDER Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal u/s 13 (c) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 24.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner Hisar Division. The matter relates to appointment of backward class Lambardar for village Shikarpur, Tehsil and District Hisar. The vacancy had arisen on account of death of Backward class Lambardar Shri Mamman Ram on 31.7.2003. There were 29 applicants but at various stages 24 of them withdrew their names and only five applicants remained for consideration. Tehsildar, Hisar considered the relative merits of these five applicants and made a recommendation to SDO (Civil), Hisar in favour of Shri Subhash Chander S/o Shri Maman Ram vide order dated 17.5.2004. The SDO (Civil)-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hisar considered these recommendation and vide detailed order dated 25.11.2004 concurred with the recommendation of Tehsildar, Hisar and made a similar recommendation to Collector, Hisar. All the five candidates appeared before Collector, Hisar and were heard by him. Rajesh Kumar s/o Harish Kumar made a submission before the Collector that his merit has not been duly considered by Tehsildar and SDO (Civil). The Collector asked the SDO (Civil) to re-examine the matter and send a recommendation again. The SDO (Civil) sent his recommendations to Collector again on 18.8.2005 and recommended the name of Subhash Chander s/o Maman Ram. The Collector considered these recommendations and vide detailed order dated 18.10.2005 appointed Subhash Chander s/o Maman Ram, the present appellant before me, as Lambardar. An appeal against these orders of the Collector was filed by one of the applicants Diwan Singh S/O Moola Ram before the Commissioner Hisar Division. The Commissioner did not accept the appeal of Diwan Singh but upset the orders of the Collector and appointed another applicant Rajesh Kumar S/O Harish Kumar as Lambardar. The present appeal before me is against these orders of the Commissioner dated 24.4.2007.

(2.) I have heard the Counsel for the appellant and the Counsel for the respondent number 1. Respondent number 2 did not appear in spite of service and ex parte proceedings were ordered against him 20.8.2008.

(3.) COUNSEL for appellant stated the following authorities in support of his contentions :-