CWP No.3871 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.3871 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.1.2010 Kuldeep Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for respondent no.1. Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.1.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner, (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioner was found to be a more suitable candidate and, therefore, appointed as a Lambardar, by the Collector. His appointment was affirmed by the Commissioner but the Financial Commissioner held that as respondent no.2 is a better candidate, the Collector should have appointed respondent no.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Financial Commissioner is empowered to examine the correctness of the selection made by the Collector, his powers are confined to a consideration of the legality of the choice namely, whether the choice is arbitrary, capricious, CWP No.3871 of 2008 2 unreasonable or has been made by ignoring the law. A revisional authority cannot substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the Collector and therefore, the Financial Commissioner committed an error by weighing respective merits and holding that respondent no.2 is a better candidate. Counsel for the respondent no.2, on the other hand, submits that respondent no.2 is younger in age, as he is 50 years old, whereas the petitioner is 57 years old. Even otherwise, the Collector has ignored the social activities of respondent no.2 and, therefore, the Financial Commissioner has not committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the Collector. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and have no hesitation in holding that the Financial Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction. It is a settled position in law, reiterated by this court, as also by the Supreme Court of India that the choice of the Collector is final, except where his choice is vitiated by an arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable exercise of discretion or has been made in violation of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, a Financial Commissioner may appraise the orders impugned before him but for the limited purpose of ascertaining, whether the choice of the Collector suffers from any of the disabilities referred to above. The Financial Commissioner has not pointed out any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector and,therefore, exceeded his jurisdiction. In this view of the matter,the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29.1.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, to decide the revision afresh and in accordance with law. CWP No.3871 of 2008 3 Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, on 26.2.2010. 22.1.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE