IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18059 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 25, 2011 Pala Ram .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner was appointed Lambardar for village Rahra, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, vide Order dated 23.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector, Karnal. Respondent No.4 filed appeal which has been accepted by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, vide Order dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure P-2). The CWP No.18059 of 2010 [2] Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide Order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure P-3) has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Order Annexure P-3 is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has rendered substantial social service which fact cannot be ignored. Collector is the appointing authority and his choice should have been respected. Learned counsel further contends that shcool leaving certificate, Annexure P-4 clearly indicates that petitioner is literate. 3. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 4. Commissioner accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.4 essentially on the ground that all other parameters are comparable and nearly similar. Respondent No.4 however is more educated being matriculate. Respondent (petitioner herein) has not placed on record any evidence in regard to his education, although he claims to be 5th class pass. 5. Although Annexure P-4 indicates that petitioner passed 5th class, however, it remains a fact that respondent is matriculate and therefore, more educated. The appellate authority has attached more value to education of the CWP No.18059 of 2010 [3] respondent and no perversity with the findings can be traced. The impugned orders do not call for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 6. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 25, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?