IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19361 of 2011 Date of decision : 17.10.2011 Satbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2011 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana remanding the matter back to the Commissioner to decide the question of appointment of Lambardar afresh. The Collector while determining the aforesaid issue merely referred to the merits of the selected candidate i.e. the petitioner before this Court even without remotely touching upon the deficiencies of the other candidates which could have prompted the Collector to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar. The Commissioner before whom the matter went up in appeal also did not elaborate on the issue and merely noticed the considerations that ought to weigh at the time of selection of a Lambardar and recited the settled preposition regarding the respect to be given to the Collector's C.W.P.No.19361 of 2011 -2- choice. He, however, made no mention of any of the merits and de- merits of the candidates which were to be considered. The Financial Commissioner noticed in his order the aforesaid deficiencies which had crept in the orders of both the Collector and the Commissioner. He noticed that the question of the petitioner being defaulters at one point of time or the question of any of the candidates being defaulters needed to be examined thoroughly as also the claims of the other candidates which were based on more educational qualifications, higher size of holdings and the question of heredity. The Commissioner was thus right in observing that none of the orders i.e. of the Collector and the Commissioner reflected any application of mind on the said aspects raised before the Financial Commissioner which he unambiguously noticed in his reasoning while remitting the matter back to the Commissioner. The plea that the learned Financial Commissioner has determined the issue of the petitioner being a defaulter is misplaced. The Financial Commissioner has merely noticed the question of all the candidates possibly being defaulters at some point of time without really ascertaining the fact to the detriment to any of the candidates. The issue is thus open as are also the other issues which have found mention in the reasoning of the Financial Commissioner. I am of the opinion that the order being just and reasoned does not warrant any interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 17.10.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss