R.L. Khurana, J.—The bone of contention between the petitioner Dharam Chand and respondent No. 3, Nokhu Ram/is the office of Village Headman (Lambardar) of Phati Gojra, Kothi Jagatsukh, in Tehsil and District Kullu.

2. One Chene Ram was the Lambardar of Phati Gojra, he died in the year 1978 leaving behind no legal heir. Consequent upon his death, proceedings were initiated by the Collector, Kullu, under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for appointment of Lambardar by inviting applications therefor. The petitioner along with respondent No. 3 and four other persons were contenders for such office. All such contenders were summoned so that their respective claims and credentials for the office may be ascertained. One of the contenders, namely, Jindu Ram withdrew his candidature in favour of respondent No. 3. The Collector, Kullu, on the basis of the relative merits of the candidates vide his order dated 26.11.1980 appointed respondent No. 3. Nokhu Ram, as the Lambardar.

3. It appears that subsequently the petitioner approached the Collector seeking review of the order dated 26.11.1980 apponting respondent No. 3 as the Lambardar. In such review application, it was pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 had misrepresented that he was free from indebtedness. In fact, Respondent No. 3 had taken a loan from Gojra Sehkari Samiti and had not repaid the loan. He was thus under a debt as on the relevant date and as such not eligible for appointment to the office of Lambardar. The Collector, after holding an enquiry, found that respondent No. 3 was actually under debt and, therefore, was not eligible for being appointed to the office of Lambardar. He accordingly, on 23.4.1981 recalled his order dated 26.11.1980 and after setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 3, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar.

4. Respondent No. 3, aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.1981 went up in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who vide order dated 16.9.1982 allowed such appeal and after setting the order dated 23.4.1981 passed on review by the Collector, restored the original order dated 26.11.1980 of the Collector, appointing respondent No. 3 to the office of Lambardar.

5. The order dated 16.9.1982 of the Divisional Commissioner was assailed by the petitioner by way of an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 1.1.1985 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and after setting aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner, remanded the case to the Collector for reconsidering the respective merits of the candidates and selecting a candidate who is most suitable for appointment as Lambardar of Phati Gojra, Kothi Jagatsukh.

6. Respondent No. 3 assailed the order dated 1.1.1985 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) by way of a writ petition before this Court, being CWP No. 474 of 1985. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed writ petition on 23.3.1993 and upheld the order dated 1.1.1985 remanding the case to the Collector. The Division Bench further observed: "Needless to add that the Collector, District Kullu, shall now proceed to make appointment in the light of the order passed by respondent No. 2, after hearing the petitioner and respondent No. 3."

7. On reconsideration of the case and after hearing the parties, namely, the petitioner and respondent No. 3, the Collector on 30.9.1993 vide order, copy of which is Annexure P3, appointed the petitioner to the office of Lambardar. The Collector was of the opinion that considering the merits of both the candidates, the petitioner was a better candidate.

8. Respondent No. 3, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.9.1993 (Annexure P3) went up in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. Such appeal was dismissed on 17.6.1994 vide order as at Annexure P4. The Divisional Commissioner thus upheld the order dated 30.9.1993 (A