JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.10122 of 2010 (Suresh Kumar Vs. Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt., Haryana, Chandigarh and others) and 13648 of 2010 (Mohan Lal Vs. Commissioner, Rohtak and others). For disposal of these writ petitions, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.10122 of 2010. 2. On the death of father of petitioner, Suresh Kumar son of Gurdial Singh, the post of Harijan Lambardar in Village Madlauda, District Panipat, fell vacant on 22.1.1998. The process to appoint the Lambardar was initiated. After return of file on more than one occasion, the case was finally taken up for consideration by the Collector on 19.6.2000, when he found that all the three candidates were ineligible and incompetent for being appointed as Harijan Lambardar. The Collector directed Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, to invite fresh applications, after making a fresh proclamation in the Village. 3. This order was challenged by one Karan Singh before the Commissioner, who upheld the order of the Collector vide his order dated 18.5.2002. He also ordered Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panipat, to conduct fresh proclamation in the Village. This order passed by the Commissioner was challenged by respondent No.4, Suresh Kumar, by way of revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner also dismissed the revision. Respondent No.4 filed Civil Writ Petition No.3998 of 2005 before this Court to challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. This writ petition was disposed of with an observation to consider respondent No.4 eligible for appointment to the post of Harijan Lambardar in accordance with law. Subsequent thereto, fresh proclamation was made and the applications were invited in the years 2005 and 2006. 4. Plea is that respondent No.4 never applied for the post of Harijan Lambardar and he had applied on 23.5.2005 only. The matter was again brought before this Court by one Krishan through Civil Writ Petition No.1965 of 2006, praying that his claim for appointment to the post of Lambardar be considered. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Collector had rejected all the 10 applications and further ordered fresh proclamation in the Village. The Collector is stated to have annulled the previous proceedings and ordered a fresh proclamation, which was made in the Village on 28.4.2006. Ten persons submitted their applications within the stipulated period. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Collector had rejected all the 10 applications and further ordered fresh proclamation in the Village. The Collector is stated to have annulled the previous proceedings and ordered a fresh proclamation, which was made in the Village on 28.4.2006. Ten persons submitted their applications within the stipulated period. It is stated that respondent No.4 never applied when the fresh applications were so invited. 5. The starting of fresh process seems to have again been challenged by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed. A revision was also filed before the Financial Commissioner, who directed that the process of appointment of Lambardar, as per the rules be resumed from the stage at which it was halted at the level of Assistant Collector IInd Grade. 6. Assistant Collector IInd Grade then recommended the name of respondent No.4 as other four candidates had withdrawn their applications. Tehsildar affirmed the said order and the Collector accordingly appointed respondent No.4 as Harijan Lambardar of the Village. This order is now challenged in the present writ petitions after having remained unsuccessful before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. 7. The sole grievance raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been held ineligible on the ground that he was found ineligible initially by the Collector, which order he never impugned in any manner. Accordingly, the petitioner was not taken as eligible for consideration. The order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3998 of 2005, which was filed by respondent No.4, would not make the present petitioner eligible for consideration as in the said writ petition, the only prayer made by respondent No.4 was that he be directed to be considered for appointment to the post of Harijan Lambardar in accordance with law. The action of official respondents in not considering the petitioner eligible appears just as he never challenged this finding. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, which may call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 8. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------