R.S.MADAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing the orders dated 8.12.2004 and 26.4.2002 (Annexures P5 and P3), passed by respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively, whereby the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of Village Dungra, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, was quashed and respondent No. 3 was appointed as Lambardar. The petitioner has further sought for the restoration of the order dated 10.5.2000 passed by the learned Collector, Karnal, appointing him as Lambardar of the Village.
(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are that pursuant to the proclamation made in Village Dungra through Halqa Patwari, the petitioner is said to have submitted application to the Naib Tehsildar for appointment as Lambardar of the Village. Three other candidates, namely, Kuldeep Singh, Gursharan Singh (respondent No. 3 in this writ petition) and Balwant Singh also applied in response to the proclamation. After the receipt of applications, the Naib Tehsildar, Indri after due consideration recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar of Village Dungra, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. The name of the petitioner for his appointment as Lambardar of the village was further recommended by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal, being more suitable and more educated. When the case of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar was pending before the Collector, respondent No. 3 herein, made a complaint to the Collector alleging therein that the petitioner was unauthorizedly occupying the government land. The learned Collector, after verifying the facts about the unauthorized possession of the land, consider the merits and demerits of the complaint and found that the land is owned by Punjab Wakf Board. It was thereafter that the learned Collector vide order dated 10.5.2000 (Annexure P- 1) appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of Village Dungra.
(3.) FEELING dis-satisfied with the order (Annexure P-1), respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, which was accepted vide order dated 26.04.2002 and the appointment of petitioner as Lambardar was set aside holding that handing over possession of unauthorized land during the pendency of appeal, cannot remove the disqualification of the petitioner.;