LPA No. 262 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.262 of 2009 Decided on : 24-4-2009 Rajinder Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sherry K Singla, Advocate for the Caveator-respondent no.4. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J This is a Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause X of Letters Patent challenging order dated 21.1.2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 924 of 2009. The learned Single Judge in his order has held that the appreciation of merit between the appellant and Hem Singh-respondent no.4 is within the domain of the Collector as long as his preference is not perverse. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge shows that the Collector was conscious of the fact that the appellant is younger in age and that he had hereditary preference. It cannot be said that the Collector did not consider the aforesaid attributes of the appellant LPA No. 262 of 2009 2 contrasting the same with the characteristics of respondent no.4-Hem Singh. The argument raised by Mr. Mehsempuri that the order of the Collector is cryptic and does not require to be upheld by either of the authorities as well as this Court does not stand to reason because Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules postulates only those factors which have been taken into account by the authorities. We are further of the view that the appellate jurisdiction could be exercised only in a case which suffers from the vice of such a perversity which may result into violation of a statutory requirement or in material particular. There is no such perversity either in the order of the Collector or any other authority. If two persons are eligible for one post then in the absence of non-fulfillment of the eligibility criteria the matte has to be left to the choice of the Selecting Authority. Once the selection has been made by the Collector then it cannot be argued that particular attribute of a non-selected candidate should have been preferred over the other. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE April 24, 2009 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) rekha JUDGE