IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10885 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.7.2008 Balbir Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) The District Collector, Ludhiana by his order dated 22.8.2006 arrived at the conclusion that Gurmail Singh-respondent No.5 was the best candidate for being appointed as the Scheduled Caste, Lambardar. The reasons which weighed with the District Collector, Ludhiana in recording the aforesaid conclusion are depicted in the penultimate paragraph of the said order, the relevant extract whereof is being reproduced hereunder: “I find Gurmail Singh to be the better candidate out of all three candidates. One his economic condition is good and he is Income Tax payee, two he is doing diary work in the village and is always available in the village, third there is no case or allegation against him, four he is supported by most SC people of village, five he is recommended by the Tehsildar and SDM Ludhiana (West) for post SC lambardar.” The Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, however, remanded the matter to the District Collector, Ludhiana for redetermination on 30.5.2007. The order dated 30.5.2007 was subject matter of challenge in an appeal filed at the hands of Gurmail Singh- respondent No.5 before the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II , Punjab. CWP No.10885 of 2008 -2- The Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab Chandigarh by his order dated 12.3.2008 set aside the remand order and accepted the determination rendered by the District Collector, Ludhiana vide his order dated 22.8.2006. The primary issue for consideration by this Court is whether the adjudication of inter se merit amongst the candidates by the District Collector, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 22.8.2006, was justified. The basis of determination of the aforesaid merit has been extracted in the instant order. We are satisfied that there is nothing improper or incorrect in the aforesaid determination. Dismissed. (J.S. KHEHAR) JUDGE July 15, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE