IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16300 of 2010 Date of decision : 20.07.2011 Haroon Ali ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The post of Numberdar in Village Garhi Bhalal fell vacant after the removal of Najim, who was the earlier Numberdar. In response to the proclamation made, four persons submitted their application for appointment as Numberdar. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade recommended the claim of respondent No. 4 who was ultimately appointed as Numberdar. The petitioner had filed appeal against this order before the Commissioner on various grounds, pleading that he was social worker, had donated blood and was working for cleanliness of the village. He also claimed that he was young, hale and hearty and his financial position was also better. The Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Collector and appointed the petitioner as Numberdar on 18.12.2009. Civil Writ Petition No. 16300 of 2010 -2- Respondent no. 4 then impugned this order before by the Financial Commissioner, who has now upheld the choice exercised by the Collector and has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this writ petition to challenge this order. As per the settled position of law, the choice of the Collector is final except where the order discloses the lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact, so as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, no interference would be called for. See Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurdial Singh Versus Iqbal Singh, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 283. The Collector has considered the merits and demerits of all the candidates and took into account the justifiable reason to appoint respondent No. 4. Noticing that the Collector/Commissioner had ignored relevant material, which is relevant for appointment of Numberdar, the Financial Commissioner has satisfied himself by summoning the record. The Financial Commissioner had noticed factual inaccuracy in the case , pleaded on behalf of the petitioner, while seeking appointment of Numberdar. Ultimately, the Financial Commissioner has upheld the choice exercised by the Collector. I do not see any valid justification to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 20, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE