ISHWAR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR HISAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector appointing respondent No.5-Shyam Sunder as the Lambardar of Villages Moth Karnail, Garhi Aajima and Dhani Kumharan, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hisar, appeal against which preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-2) and the orders dated 22.03.2018 (Annexure P-4) and 27.09.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.5-Shyam Sunder was an accused in a case which was registered against him under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Narnaund, on 25.11.2002. After trial, he had been acquitted on 04.07.2009 but by giving him benefit of doubt. He contends that as there is not a clear acquittal in favour of respondent No.5, the character of the said respondent cannot be said to be beyond blemish and there is always a cloud attached to that. He contends that the District Collector, Hisar, while passing the order dated 22.02.2017, although has mentioned the respective claims and the qualifications of the candidates but while passing the actual order of consideration, there is no mention with regard to the comparative merit of the applicants. He contends that there has actually been no consideration with regard to merit of the claim of the petitioner. Assertion has also been made that the name of the petitioner had been recommended by the Assistant Collector and he was also recommended by the Gram Panchayat of Village Garhi Aajima. Although he could not dispute the fact that respondent No.5 was younger in age to him and more qualified but he asserted that if we look into the other aspects i.e. the social work in which the petitioner had been indulging in comparison to respondent No.5 as well as the land owned, petitioner would have a better claim. He, therefore, contends that the impugned orders which have been passed by the authorities, cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned orders but do not find myself in agreement with any of the contentions which have been raised by him.