BHAJNA RAM Vs. HUSSAN PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay of 47 days in filing LPA-7737-2018 and 49 days in filing LPA-7-2019 is condoned. The applications stand disposed of.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the disputes can be summarized as under:-

(3.) Admittedly, much water has flown since the selection and appointment on the post of Lambardar was made as long back as on 11/5/1994. Giving effect to the order dtd. 3/8/1998 passed by the Financial Commissioner while allowing the revision petition after about twenty four years to our mind would not serve any purpose. Furthermore, once the Financial Commissioner found that the order passed by the District Collector in selecting and appointing Karma (since deceased) suffered from material deficiency and there was also a dispute with respect to the post of Lambardar being reserved or not it was more appropriate for him to have remanded the matter back to the District Collector to consider the dispute afresh. Instead, the Financial Commissioner proceeded to pass an order to appoint respondent No. 1 herein as Lambardar. It would be in the fitness of things and in the deeper interest of everyone that after such a long lapse of time, instead of entering into all this controversy, the post of Lambardar is filled in afresh after inviting applications from the candidates who have become eligible during the interregnum period of twenty four years. By giving an appointment on the basis of the order dtd. 3/8/1998 to respondent No. 1 herein would in effect amount to denying an equal opportunity to the eligible persons.