PHOOL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner as well as by the Commissioner to set aside his appointment as Lambardar as ordered by the Collector, Sonepat.

(2.) The facts in brief are that office of village Lambardar of village Mauza Chatia Aulia, Tehsil and District Sonepat fell vacant on the death of the then Lambardar, Amar Dass. Applications were accordingly invited from all eligible and interested persons for the appointment of Lambardar. 8 persons gave the application but except the petitioner and respondent No. 4 remaining candidates withdrew their applications. The Collector, Sonepat after discussing the inter se merit of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village on 22.3.2007. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, Ludhiana Division, Ludhiana. He set aside the order passed by the Collector and appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, who dismissed the said revision petition on 2.1.2009. The petitioner has thus impugned the order passed by the Commissioner as well by the Financial Commissioner through the present writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner has separately filed an application for placing on record number of documents, which has been allowed. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the Commissioner could not have validly interfered in the order passed by the Collector unless the same was perverse as it is the choice of Collector which is to prevail and required to be given preference.