Judgment

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction, especially a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 01.06.2022 passed by respondent no.1.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that after the death of Kapoor Singh, the post of Lambardar (General category) of village Rithal Phougat, Tehsil and District Rohtak got vacated and applications were invited from interested persons for filing up the said vacancy, by the Tehsildar, Rohtak. In pursuance of the same, 9 persons, including the present petitioner Pardeep Kumar and respondent no.4-Naveen, applied for the said post. The Collector vide order dated 24.07.2020, after considering the comparative merits and demerits of all the candidates, appointed respondent no.4 as the Lambardar of village Rithal Phougat (General category). While appointing respondent no.4 as the Lambardar, the Collector had taken into consideration that respondent no.4 was a graduate and was the real nephew of the deceased Kapoor Singh, Lambardar and had helped his uncle in the work of Lambardar and had also produced the receipts of donations given by him to various organizations and had a deposit of Rs.41,50,500/- in Small Saving Scheme and also had two acres of agricultural land and one house and had also done MPHW course and had also produced No Dues Certificate from the Electricity Department. The merits of other candidates, including the present petitioner, were also taken into consideration and ultimately, after drawing a comparison, it was found that respondent no.4 was more educated and was younger in age and was also the real nephew of deceased Kapoor Singh Lambardar and had the requisite knowledge concerning the work of Lambardar and even the Tehsildar, Rohtak had recommended the name of respondent no.4 for the post of Lambardar and thus, respondent no.4 was appointed as the Lambardar of village Rithal Phougat in the General category.

3. Four appeals were filed against the said order by four different candidates including the present petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner Rohtak, Division Rohtak, after reconsidering the merits and demerits of the candidates, had found that the present petitioner was a better candidate than the rest and accordingly, had set aside the order passed by the Collector and had directed the appointment of the present petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 15.04.2021. While passing the said order, the Commissioner had observed that respondent no.4-Naveen’s father had occupied Panchayat’s land and thus, the said factor was one of the factors which weighed with the Divisional Commissioner in allowing the appeal filed by the present petitioner.

4. Four revision petitions were filed by four candidates including respondent no.4 before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh allowed the revision petition filed by respondent no.4-Naveen vide order dated 01.06.2022 after coming to the conclusion that there was no illegality and perversity in the order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the Collector and had thus, set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner and restored the order of the Collector and appointed respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. In the said order, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana had observed that it is well settled law that the choice of the Collector for the appointment of Lambardar should not be interfered with unless the same is perverse or patently illegal. It was found that the present petit