IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.9084 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 06, 2011. Jaspal Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.K.B.Raheja, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.4 as Harizan Lambardar of village Midhu Khera, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar. The Collector, Muktsar preferred respondent No.4 after observing that he was about 32 years of age and was 5th Class and is grand- son of Karnail Singh, deceased-Lambardar of the village. The fact that the Gram Panchayat also recommended the name of respondent No.4 also found favour with the Collector. As against it, the petitioner though is a young and better qualified in terms of literacy was rejected keeping in view the police report against him primarily for the reason that the father of the petitioner was found involved in terrorists activities and a case under TADA and Arms Act was registered against him. The third candidate CWP No.9084 of 2011 [2] namely, Mandar Singh was rejected as he was 60 years of age and was drawing the old age pension. The choice of the Collector which should ordinarily prevail, was later on approved by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur also, who dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide the order dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P-3). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Kashmira Singh versus The Financial Commissioner and another (1983 P.L.J. 142); Bhag Singh versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana (2001 (1) R.C.r. (Civil) 9 and Gurbachan Singh versus Financial Commissioner (Appeal-I), Punjab, 2001 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 22, it is urged that mere registration of the criminal case is not a disqualification and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been considered on merits. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. I say so for the reason that even if the registration of criminal case against the petitioner's father or any adverse police report said to have been submitted against him, are over-looked, yet there is no substantial difference in the comparative merit of the petitioner and respondent No.4. That being so, the formation of view by the Collector which stands approved by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 06, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE