Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - This judgment will dispose of CWP No.15031 of 2001 titled ‘Om Parkash v. State of Haryana and others’ and CWP No.5725 of 2000 titled ‘Ramphal v. State of Haryana and others’ as they arise from the common orders.

2. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from CWP No.15031 of 2001.

3. Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.06.1997 (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector, Hisar, order dated 02.11.1998 (Annexure P-2) passed by Commissioner, Hisar, and order dated 20.10.1999 (Annexure P-3) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

4. Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Tara Chand, Lambardar of village Pali, Tehsil Narnaud, District Hisar, applications were invited from interested persons by making proclamation through beat of drum in the village after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority. In pursuance of proclamation ten candidates submitted their applications. Later on, Dharambir son of Tara Chand, Sajan Singh son of Pirthi Singh, Balwant son of Mange and Jai Pal Singh son of Rishi Lal retired from the contest and only six candidates, namely, Rajbir Singh son of Tara Chand, Ramphal son of Richhpal, Om Parkash son of Kuda Ram, Kartar Singh son of Narain Singh, Karambir son of Dhanpat and Dharambir son of Tara Chand remained in the fray. After examining the comparative merits of the remaining six candidates, Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar, Narnaud recommended the name of Om Parkash son of Kuda Ram for appointment as Lambardar. SDO, Hansi also considered the recommendations of the subordinate authorities and also recommended the name of Om Parkash. Contesting candidates appeared before the Collector, Hisar. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merits of the candidates found Ram Phal to be fit and suitable candidate and vide impugned order dated 04.06.1997 (Annexure P-1) appointed him as Lambardar of the village. Against the order of the Collector Om Parkash and Rajbir filed appeals before the Commissioner, Hisar. The Commissioner vide order dated 02.11.1998 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the appeal of Om Parkash and allowed the appeal of Rajbir and appointed him Lambardar of the village. Against the order of the Commissioner, Ramphal and Om Parkash filed revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner, which have been dismissed vide order dated 20.10.1999 (Annexure P-3). Hence, instant writ petitions by Om Parkash and Ramphal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for Om Parkash vehemently contended that he is middle pass and owns 15 acres of land. Learned counsel for Om Parkash further contended that he has also been persuading the residents of the village for opting the family planning scheme and has been in a position to persuade two persons to opt for family planning. It is submitted that although two criminal cases were registered against Om Parkash but subsequently he has been acquitted in both the cases. He is not defaulter of State Bank of India. Learned counsel for Om Parkash contended that Rajbir is not having any qualification and no certificate in this regard has been placed on record, therefore, his appointment by Commissioner as Lambardar of the village is against the settled principles of law as well as the considerations mentioned in Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable to Haryana). Learned counsel for Om Parkash contended that Rajbir has been relying upon a false middle pass certificate and also making wrong statement which is contrary to the records. He has wrongly claimed as Sarbarah Lambardar.

7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for Rajbir vehemently contended that Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have rightly appointed him Lambardar of the village. He was young man of 30 years, having 7 acres of land and he has not committed any