IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17460 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 19, 2011 Ram Partap ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, being aggrieved against the action of the official respondents in appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar and ignoring his claim, has filed the present writ petition. Collector had appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar, which was upheld by the Commissioner. It was found that respondent No.4 was more qualified being graduate and younger in age. The choice exercised by the Collector was upheld by the Commissioner as well as by the Financial Commissioner. Counsel contends that the person appointed as Lambardar is a Typist and would not be available in the village. That reason, in my view, would not be sufficient to disentitle respondent No.4 for appointment to the post of Lambardar. I do not find any reason to interfere in the choice exercised by the Collector and upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. Dismissed. September 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE