The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The Court held the selection authorities acted within discretion as the appointee was more educated and had family experience in the post.
The petition challenging the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Lambardar was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1615 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 28, 2011
Kuldeep Singh
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
CWP No.1615 of 2011 [2]
thereby upholding the order passed by District Collector, Hisar.
of learned counsel.
CWP No.1615 of 2011 [3]
as Lambardar. Respondent No.4 is more educated. No disability or ineligibility in the merit of respondent No.4 can be traced. Merit is comparative.
extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.
(AJAI LAMBA)
January 28, 2011 JUDGE
avin
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the District Collector and Financial Commissioner erred in appointing Respondent No.4 as Lambardar on grounds of comparative merit.
Kuldeep Singh
State of Haryana
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
