In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ….. C.W.P. No.12271 of 2009 …. Date of decision:3.9.2009 Anand Kumar ….Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others …Respondents …. Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. …. S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner Anand Kumar seeks quashing of the order dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Financial Commissioner/Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Haryana (respondent No.1) and order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.2) in pursuance of which the Commissioner (respondent No.2) has set aside the order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Collector, Panipat (respondent No.3). Pirthi Singh, the previous Lambardar of Village Namunda died and on his demise the post of Lambardar fell vacant. Proceedings were initiated to fill the post. A proclamation was made in the village and two persons, that is, the petitioner-Anand Kumar and Rajender (respondent No.4) applied for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. Verification of both the candidates was got done from the Police. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) submitted his report to the Collector Panipat with regard to the verifications carried out by him. The Collector, Panipat (respondent C.W.P. No.12271 of 2009 [2] No.3) after considering the matter found the petitioner as a better candidate for the post of Lambardar and vide order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) he was appointed. Rajender (respondent No.4) aggrieved against the order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) assailed the same before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.2) by way of an appeal. The learned Commissioner (respondent No.2) in terms of order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2) set aside the order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Collector, Panipat. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) who in terms of the impugned order dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure-P.3) dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed the present petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Lambardar was recommended by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). The Collector, Panipat (respondent No.3) also found the petitioner to be a better candidate for the post of Lambardar. Therefore, he was appointed as such and since then the petitioner has been performing the duties of Lambardar of Village Namunda, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat. A reference has been made to the comparative chart of the petitioner and respondent No.4. It is submitted that the petitioner is younger in age, inasmuch as, he is 24 years of age whereas respondent No.4 is 35 years old. The petitioner is 12th pass whereas respondent No.4 is 10th pass. The petitioner has two acres of agricultural land, however, respondent No.4 has three acres of land. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got deposited Rs.1.12 crores towards small saving scheme whereas respondent No.4 has got deposited C.W.P. No.12271 of 2009 [3] Rs.95 lakhs. The candidature of the petitioner is supported by as many as 397 persons whereas that of respondent No.4 is supported by only 47 persons. Therefore, it is submitted that the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner have gravely erred in setting aside the well reasoned and considered order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Collector. It is submitted that the choice of Collector is not normally to be upset or disturbed by the revenue authorities. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the choice of the Collector in the consideration process for appointment as Lambardar is normally not to be disturbed or lightly upset unless there is a grave error, illegality or perversity in the order appointing the Lambardar, nevertheless an appeal against the order of the Collector is a continuation of the original proceedings. The Collector in terms of his order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) considered the case of both the candidates for the post of Lambardar. The petitioner, it was observed, was younger in age, inasmuch as, he was 24 years of age whereas respondent No.4 was 35 years of age. Besides, the petitioner was 12th pass whereas respondent No.4 was 10th pass. It was observed that importance is to be given to more qualified person. Besides, the petitioner had got deposited Rs.1.12 crores under the small saving scheme while Rajender (respondent No.4) got deposited Rs.95 lakhs. In the circumstances, the Collector while agreeing with the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Samalakha found the petitioner as a better candidate. However, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No.2) in terms of his order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2) also considered the qualifications and merits and demerits of both the candidates. It was observed that though the Collector C.W.P. No.12271 of 2009 [4] had found the petitioner to be more suitable on account of his young age and his higher qualification, however, contribution of both the candidates towards small saving scheme and family planning programme was almost equal. Insofar as the recommendations of the revenue officers were concerned it was observed that the name of Anand Kumar (petitioner) had been recommended by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). However, both the circle revenue officers i.e. Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar had recommended the name of Rajender (respondent No.4). The comparative merit, it was observed, showed that both the candidates are quite eligible and fulfil all requirements for the post of Lambardar. The Commissioner despite this preferred Rajender (respondent No.4) for appointment as Lambardar. What weighed with the Commissioner (respondent No.2) was that Rajender (respondent No.4) was son of the deceased Lambardar. It was observed that respondent No.4 possesses sufficient experience of Lambardari work being young and a mature person of 35 years of age. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Rajender (respondent No.4) was accepted in terms of order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2). The petitioner aggrieved against the said order of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana who vide order dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure-P.3) found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed the same. The learned Financial Commissioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, C.W.P. No.1155 of 2004, decided on 29.8.2008, wherein it has been observed that where in case of relatively equal merits of rival candidates, the subjective satisfaction of the Collector should not be interfered with. However, in a C.W.P. No.12271 of 2009 [5] case where comparative merit of one of the candidates was found to be more meritorious than the one chosen by the Collector, interference at the hands of the appellate/revisional authority as also during the course of judicial review is eminent failing which a discretion that is arbitrarily exercised would defeat the cause of justice. It was observed that the Commissioner had found the respondent No.4 to be more meritorious and accordingly he was appointed. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the findings reached at by the revenue authorities and neither is this Court to substitute its own decision for that of the revenue authorities. It may be noticed that the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the learned Financial Commissioner have on appreciation of the material on record reached at the conclusion that Rajender (respondent No.4) is more meritorious for appointment as Lambardar. Nothing is shown that the decision reached at by the revenue authorities that is the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the Financial Commissioner is, in any manner, erroneous or perverse which would warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It may be noticed that the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak in his order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure-P.2) has observed that respondent No.4 is the son of the deceased Lambardar. Although a hereditary claim for appointment of Lambardar for appointment as Lambardar is not the sole factor on which appointment of Lambardar is to be made but it may be noticed that the same is a relevant factor to which regard is to be had in the consideration process in terms of Rule 15 of the C.W.P. No.12271 of 2009 [6] Punjab Land Revenue Rules (`Rules’ – for short). The said rule reads as under:- “15. Matters to be considered in first appointments.-- In all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had among other matters to— (a) his hereditary claims; (b) extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate; (c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; (d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; (e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; (f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India.” A perusal of the above Rule 15 of the Rules shows that in first appointment of Headman regards shall be had among others to hereditary claims. Therefore, even though the claim based on hereditary for consideration for appointment of Lambardar is not the sole factor for consideration for appointment as Lambardar but it is one of the factors to which regard is to be had to. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner having taken the said factor into consideration which is in consonance with the Rules, this Court is not to upset the decision validly reached at in the consideration process. In exercise of the powers of judicial review of this Court, the Court is concerned more with the decision making C.W.P. No.12271 of 2009 [7] process rather than the decision reached at. The decision having been validly reached at on the consideration of the material and evidence on record and the said decision is not, in any manner, shown to be illegal or perverse would warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 3, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes