CWP No.14903 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.14903 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.11.2010 Rohtas .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Sansar Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for respondent no.1. Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for respondent no.2. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 19.6.2008 and 23.4.2009, passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division (camp at Rohtak) and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was appointed as the Lambardar by the Collector after due appraisal of the merits of all candidates, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Collector and impose his own perception of the better candidate. It is argued that the choice of the Collector is final till it is arbitrary or perverse In the absence of any perversity in the Collector's CWP No.14903 of 2009 2 order, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner should have affirmed the order passed by the Collector. It is further submitted that the Commissioner has appointed respondent no.2, on the ground that his influence in society and services rendered to society far outweigh any such service rendered by the petitioner. The finding is factually incorrect as services rendered by the petitioner to society, in the shape of small savings etc. have been ignored by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. It is further submitted that respondent no.2's date of birth differs in his matriculation and his 8th class certificate, thereby clearly establishing that respondent no.2 had procured a false certificate. Counsel for respondent no.2, on the other hand, submits that as the Collector ignored respondent no.2's social service, as detailed in the order passed by the Commissioner, the Collector's order was rightly set aside as being perverse and arbitrary. The discrepancy in the matriculation and the 8th class certificate is a mere typographical error and does not detract from respondent no.2's merits in any manner. It is further submitted that though the choice of the Collector is final, there is no impediment in law that prevents an appellate or revisional authority from evaluating the merits of candidates, if the choice of the Collector is perverse and arbitrary. As the Commissioner has clearly held that the order passed by the Collector is perverse and arbitrary, he was justified in selecting respondent no.2 as the Lambardar. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The Collector appointed the petitioner as the Lambardar by holding that both the petitioner and respondent no.2 have equal educational CWP No.14903 of 2009 3 qualifications, bear good character and have contributed to government schemes, but as the petitioner has more agricultural land, he is appointed as the Lambardar. The Collector also made an adverse comment on the certificates submitted by respondent no.2, that the matriculation certificate and the 8th class certificate, disclose different dates of birth i.e. 7.5.1969 and 1.3.1959. The Commissioner, on the other hand, appointed respondent no.2 by holding that public service rendered by respondent no.2 far outweighs the public service rendered by the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner. As a normal course, this court would not interfere with the choice of revenue officers, particularly if the orders are not perverse or arbitrary. Where however, a significant aspect namely; the demerits of a candidate remains unexplained or unanswered, this court would be obliged to pass appropriate order. The date of birth of respondent no.2 in his matriculation certificate is 7.5.1969, whereas in his 8th class certificate the date of birth is recorded as 1.3.1959. This discrepancy may be irrelevant for the purpose of eligibility, but assumes significance as one of the certificates is incorrect. Whether the discrepancy is a bonafide error or a fabrication should have been satisfactorily explained by respondent no.2 or examined by the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner. The Commissioner dealt with this discrepancy by linking it to eligibility. The question to be considered was not one of eligibility but whether one or the other certificate is fabricated. The Commissioner has not dealt with this aspect. The Financial Commissioner, on the other hand, did not go into this aspect and merely passed an order affirming the order passed by the Commissioner by passing an order in general terms. The question whether CWP No.14903 of 2009 4 respondent no.2 has submitted a fabricated certificate is a significant question that should have been answered by respondent no.2 and should have received due consideration by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. In the absence of any consideration of this significant aspect of the dispute, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order dated 23.4.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, to decide the revision afresh by taking into consideration the certificates submitted by respondent no.2 and only after due consideration thereof, pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, on 12.1.2011. 29.11.2010 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE