IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.19657 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 23, 2011 SANT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (COLLECTOR), PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. HS Sirohi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. A.K. Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. SS Swaich, Advocate, for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by Collector, Ludhiana. Vide the impugned order, Collector, Ludhiana has allowed the appeal of respondent No.3-Sukhminder Singh, thereby appointing respondent No.3 as Chowkidar of Village Mall Majra, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. 2 I have taken note of the fact that the Collector had earlier adjudicated on the issue and directed appointment of Sant Singh-petitioner as Chowkidar, vide order dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.3 filed CWP 812 of 2008. Vide decision of this court dated 25.8.2008 (Annexure P-3), the case was remanded to the Collector for re-adjudication. Civil Writ Petition No.19657 of 2009 2 3 In the impugned order (Annexure P-4), while considering the comparative merit of the candidates, on the issue on which the case had been remanded, the appeal of respondent No.3 has been accepted. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.3 was a defaulter of a society and, therefore, could not have been considered for appointment as Chowkidar. 5 On a perusal of the impugned order, I find that the issue has been addressed by the Collector. It has been recorded in the order that the society had issued a certificate indicating that respondent No.3 had returned the loan and, therefore, was not a defaulter of the Society. Suitability of respondent No.3 had been considered. Respondent No.3 has been stated to be a better candidate than the petitioner. 6 No ground for judicial review of the impugned order is made out in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 7 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. March 23, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?