***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) –

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-13006-2017, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed, wherein he had challenged the appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Lambardar in village Khorma, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, had appointed the appellant as Lambardar, the same should not have been interfered by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana and the said aspect should have been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, but without giving any reason, the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, on the other hand, contends that the name of respondent No.5 was recommended by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul, on the basis of which, the Collector appointed him as Lambardar, whereas the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, set aside the same and appointed the appellant, which order was challenged by respondent No.5 by filing revision petition and the said revision petition was accepted by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, holding that respondent No.5 has been found to have an edge over the appellant. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that once, the authorities have evaluated the candidates on merit, the same should have been considered by the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, whereas the appointment was set aside by the Commissioner, Gurugram, which fact has been further rectified not only by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, but the same has also been upheld by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, respondent No.5 has been restored to the position of Lambardar.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that the authorities are better suited to know which candidate is a right candidate to be appointed as Lambardar. Unless and until, any disqualification is pointed out towards the selected candidate, the interference should be minimum. Interference is only warranted when the process involves manifest illegality, gross arbitrariness or violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. In the present case, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul, had appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar, which was interfered by the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, which order was set aside by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana in revision. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana has been upheld by the learned Single Judge, by recording the finding that respondent No.5 has been found to have an edge over the appellant, which needs no interference.

7. Further, in the Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment is to be proved perverse either on facts or law, which the appellant has failed to do. Hence, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly.

8. All pending applications stand disposed of.

Appeal dismissed.

********