HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 24th September, 2013, whereby, writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 as Harijan Lambardar of village Khabra Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad remained unsuccessful.
(2.) Initially the Collector appointed the present appellant as Lambardar on 19.6.2001. But the said order was set aside by the Divisional Commissioner on 13.3.2006. After the remand, the Collector appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar but the said order was set aside by the Commissioner on 21.10.2008. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 4.7.2013 set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Collector. The writ petition filed against the order of the Financial Commissioner was dismissed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar keeping in view the fact that he is son of deceased Lambardar and all the other parameters of the appellant and the respondent No.4 are almost identical. In fact, the appellant own more land than respondent No. 4 and has also participated in small savings activities, therefore, he is better qualified than the respondent. Thus, the orders passed by the learned Single Bench and learned Financial Commissioner are liable to the set aside.;