KISHAN SINGH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revision petitions against the order dated 16.8.1994 passed by the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. Since both the revision petitions involve same point of facts and law, both these revision petitions are disposed of by a single order and a copy of same may be kept on each file.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this case are that after the death of Lal Singh former Lambardar of village Kakrala Annayat, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal applications were invited form the interested persons to fill this post. After mustri munadi S/sh. Jasbir Singh, Ashok Kumar, Kishan Singh, Kabal and Sohan etc. applied for the post. Sh. Kabal did not appear before the Tehsildar and Sohan Lal withdrew in favour of Ashok Kumar. Hence only three candidates S/Shri Jasbir Singh, Ashok Kumar and Kishan Singh left. After hearing all the parties Tehsildar Guhla recommended the name of Kishan Singh for the post of Lambardar. SDO (C) Guhla after going through the record and hearing all the parties endorsed the recommendations of Tehsildar and forwarded the case to the Collector. Learned Collector after going through all the documents and recommendations of both the Revenue Officers below found Kishan Singh a better candidate and appointed him Lambardar of the village vide his order dated 11.6.1993. Aggrieved from this order Ashok Kumar and Jasbir Singh filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner who set aside the orders of the Collector vide his order dated 20.10.1993 and remanded the case with the directions that the Collector to re-assess the suitability of all the candidates and defaults in payment of bank loan by the petitioner. In compliance of this remand order, the Collector called for a report form the SDO (C) Guhla with regard to the defaults if any on the part of contestants. On this report the petitioner was only found to be a defaulter. Learned Collector again heard the parties and held Ashok Kumar respondent No. 1 a suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar and accordingly ordered his appointment as Lambardar vide his order dated 4.4.1994. Thereafter the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 went in appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the findings of the Collector and rejected the appeal vide his order dated 16.8.94. Aggrieved from this order a revision petition has been moved in this court against the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner.