IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.23939 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.12.2011 Nazam Singh ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the orders dated 17.5.2011, 14.7.2010 and 2.2.2010 vide which the respondent No.4 has been selected as a Lambardar, and prays that the same be set aside being erroneous. The competent authorities have reasoned that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are more or less similarly qualified as far as education is concerned, both have lands in the village, but the selected candidate is 35 years of age and belongs to a family where his grandfather was a Lambardar. The cause of respondent No.4 has also been supported by more than 97 persons whereas the cause of the petitioner has been supported only by 23 respectables. C.W.P.No.23939 of 2011 -2- On due consideration, I find that there is similarity of merit inter se between the petitioner and respondent No.4, but respondent No.4 is younger in age and has been supported by more respectables and, therefore, the choice fell on him. It is settled proposition of law that the choice of the Collector should not be interfered with unless the reasoning is said to be perverse or erroneous. In the given set of circumstances the Collector has chosen a younger person with the other qualification being more less similar. He has been swayed by the fact that respondent No.4 belongs to a family of Lambardar. In this view of the matter, the choice made by the Collector in favour of respondent No.4 cannot be termed to be erroneous so as to warrant interference in the exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 21.12.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss