IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Sr. No.: 222 Civil Writ Petition No.26383 of 2015 Date of Decision: July 22, 2026 Gurdas Singh & others ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others ..... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN PRESENT: - Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.8. PANKAJ JAIN, J (Oral) By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the order passed by the Commissioner, dated 10.06.2014, has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to be decided afresh. 2. The dispute between the parties relates to appointment of Lambardar(s) for the village Jiwan Nagar, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. The process for appointment to the post of Lambardar(s) was initiated and 16 candidates applied. Their comparative merits have been tabulated by the District Collector in his order as under:- Sr. No. Name of Candidate Age Qualification Land in Kanal- Marla Experience/ other abilities 1 Malkit Singh 29 10+2 --- --- 2 Randhir Singh 42 10+2 77-12 Recommended by Tehsildar Rania 3 Rajender Singh 41 10+2 105- 18 Recommended By SDO (Civil) 4 Ravinder Pal Singh 40 10+2 64-01 ---- 5 Gursewak Singh 30 M.A.-1 145- 13 Recommended by Tehsildar Rania AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.26383 of 2015 [2] 6 Jagtar Singh 49 8th 197-1 Recommended by Tehsildar & SDO (Civil) 7 Sardool Singh 48 10+1 124-6 --- 8 Mukhtiar Singh 38 10+2 ---- ---- 9 Shiv Charan Singh 36 10th 72-17 ---- 10 Ranjit Kaur 26 B.A. 98-04 ---- 11 Balraj Singh 22 10+2 ---- ----- 12 Harpreet Singh 33 M.A. 17-9 Recommended by Tehsildar Rania 13 Jagroop Singh 38 B.A.-1 20-17 ---- 14 Raghuvir Singh 27 1-11 ---- 15 Kashmir Singh 35 B.A. M.P.Ed. 92-08 ---- 16 Gurdass Singh 48 B.A. 118- 10 Recommended by SDO (Civil) 3. The District Collector, vide order dated 05.09.2012 appointed the petitioners. Eight appeals were preferred by the unsuccessful candidates. The appeals were decided vide common order dated 10.06.2014 by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, observing as under: “4. After hearing all parties and perusing the file, I came to conclusion that the revenue estate Jiwan Nagar will be well served by Lambardar if the whole area is divided into suitable smaller parts and one general Lambardar is to be assigned one area. This requires decision on the administrative side by the revenue department. Therefore, I remand the case to the Collector with a direction to get the division of area approved on the administrative side and thereafter select one candidate from each area as per application already received in this case. The Collector will complete the administrative exercise before that. Everybody is directed to appear before Collector, Sirsa on 16.07.2014. Lower court’s record is returned. The file may be consigned to record room.” 4. The petitioners assailed the order passed by the Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 29.07.2015 set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and held that the comparative merits of the candidates be reassessed and a fresh decision be taken. It was further ordered that till the Collector takes decision afresh, the petitioners will continue to function as Lambardars. AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.26383 of 2015 [3] 5. While assailing the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Commissioner vide order dated 10.06.2014 remanded the case to the Collector to divide the estate on administrative side and thereafter select one candidate from each area. The appointment of the petitioners on merits was not disturbed yet the Financial Commissioner vide the impugned order has directed the Collector to evaluate the comparative merits of the candidates and to pass a fresh order. 6. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.8 would submit that division of the district areas was one of the criteria that weighed with the Commissioner. The letter and spirit of the order was to first divide and thereafter re-appoint the candidates which included re-determination of the comparative merits. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. Keeping in view the fact that order passed by the Commissioner has been set aside by the Financial Commissioner, the only issue that remains for consideration is the comparative merits of the candidates. 9. From a perusal of the comparative merits as tabulated hereinabove (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the Collector ought not have ignored the merit of Ranjiv Kaur who was the only female candidate and was more educated as compared to Randhir Singh and Ravinder Pal Singh. In view thereof, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is modified to the extent that the Collector shall reassess merits of Ranjit Kaur vis-à-vis AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.26383 of 2015 [4] Randhir Singh and Ravinder Pal Singh, and appoint two Lambardars out of these three candidates. 10. Disposed of accordingly. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE July 22, 2026 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No AVIN KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document