In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.19667 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:3.7.2009 Leela Singh .....Petitioner v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Department of Revenue and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 28.3.2007 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the District Collector Mewat (respondent No.3), the order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) and the order dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure-P.7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.1). The office of Lambardar fell vacant on the demise of Shri Prabhu Singh, Lambardar of Village Hudithal on 19.7.2007. Accordingly, procedure for appointment of Lambardar was initiated. Five candidates applied for the post of Lambardar. Men Raj alias Main Pal (respondent No.4) has been appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector, Mewat (respondent No.3) vide order dated 28.3.2007 (Annexure-P.3). The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the District Collector filed an C.W.P. No.19667 of 2008 [2] appeal (Annexure-P.4) before the Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2). The Commissioner after due consideration dismissed the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved against the same filed a revision (Annexure-P.6) which has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) on 10.7.2008 (Annexure-P.7). Leaned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No.4, who has been appointed as Lambardar had presented a forged and fabricated certificate regarding Anti-Polio Drive. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2008 had granted liberty to the petitioner to place further material on record so as to show that the certificate of Anti-Polio Drive issued in favour of respondent No.4 was fabricated. Further material has been placed on record by way of CM No.9059 of 2009. A reference is made to the report dated 22.4.2009 (Annexure-P.10) given by the Senior Medical Officer, CHC, Hathin (Palwal) wherein in reference to the application of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 it has been stated that the photo copy of the identity card annexed with the application it is being informed that neither the same was issued by the office and nor it can be considered as a certificate for working in Polio. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the revenue authorities are liable to be set aside and quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the scope of judicial review of orders passed by quasi- judicial authorities is limited and this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to sit in appeal over the said orders. Therefore, by acting as appellate authorities the C.W.P. No.19667 of 2008 [3] merits of the order on which the decision was reached at is not to be gone into. The certificate of Anti-Polio Drive was produced by respondent No.4 as Ex.P.19 and is placed on record as Annexure-P.8. In the said certificate it is only mentioned that he is a Polio-Eradication Employee. In the report dated 22.4.2009 (Annexure-P.10) issued by the CHC, Hathin (Palwal) it is further mentioned that such identity cards are given booth-wise four in number as blank along with other material. Besides, by writing the name on the same the said person cannot become an employee of Polio-Eradication Programme. In fact, due to scarcity of employees during polio-campaign in IPPI Programme training is given to volunteers and thereafter the work of polio is got accomplished. Therefore, the certificate (Annexure-P.8) is in the nature of an identity card which is given to volunteers. In any case, the said certificate is not one of the documents which weighed with the District Collector (respondent No.3) while appointing Men Raj alias Main Pal (respondent No.4) as the Lambardar. A perusal of the order dated 28.3.2007 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the District Collector (respondent No.3) shows that no reference has been made to the certificate (Annexure-P.8). The scope of the judicial review of a quasi-judicial order is limited. Judicial review as is well known is concerned not with the decision but with the decision making process. Besides, the test of reasonableness, which envisages that relevant materials which are necessary for reaching at a decision are taken into consideration and all irrelevant materials are excluded from the consideration process, besides the decision is not to be perverse or irrational. Therefore, the certificate (Annexure-P.8) would at the most be a document which is irrelevant in the consideration process and has C.W.P. No.19667 of 2008 [4] not been taken into consideration. As such merely because an identity card issued by the CHC, Hathin (Palwal) has been tendered as an exhibit would not mean that the same is false or fabricated. In fact, it is stated by the Senior Medical Officer in his report (Annexure-P.10) that such identity cards are given booth-wise as blank along with other material. Therefore, respondent No.4 may have participated as a volunteer in the polio- eradication programme at his own but it cannot be said that the certificate (Annexure-P.8) is false or fabricated in view of the letter dated 22.4.2009 (Annexure-P.10) of the Senior Medical Officer, CHC, Hathin. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 3, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No