← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/40345/2018dismissed

Sobha Ram v. State Of Haryana And Others

2024-12-13Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger3 pages

Village Mau, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurugram vide order dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P-2).

3.

It is worth noticing here that the present petitioner did not challenge the order dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned District Collector, Gurugram; however, respondent No.5 challenged the said order (Annexure P-2) by filing an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Gurugram, who vide its order dated 06.08.2015 (Annexure P-3), appointed respondent No.5 (Thawar Singh) as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Mau, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurugram. revision petition (ROR No.285 of 2015-16) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana; which was dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure P-5).

5.

Heard.

6.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded the fact that order dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned District Collector, Gurugram, whereby the candidature of petitioner was rejected for the post of Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Mau; was never challenged by the petitioner before the learned Commissioner.

7.

In my considered view, once the petitioner has accepted the fate of his candidature at the hands of the learned District Collector, Gurugram, who vide its order dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) rejected the claim of petitioner; then after the appointment of respondent No.5 (Thawar Singh) as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Mau on an appeal being filed by him; the petitioner is estopped from challenging the said appointment of respondent No.5 as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste). 7.1 Furthermore, order dated 06.08.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Gurugram, appointing respondent No.5 (Thawar Singh) as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Mau; has also been upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide order dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure P-5).

8.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.