IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7597 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 02, 2011 Tejpal Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) CWP No.7597 of 2011 [2] 1. Vide Order dated 19.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector, Kurukshetra, respondent No.3, Rajinder Singh has been appointed as Lambardar for village Machhrauli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, after considering comparative merit of the two candidates. Respondent Rajinder Singh is stated to be 47 years of age, 10th class pass with some social service to his credit. Petitioner is 43 years of age, Middle class pass and also with social service to his credit. 2. Petitioner carried an appeal that has been allowed vide order dated 7.11.2007 (Annexure P-2) by Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt., while saying that petitioner has better merit. Financial Commissioner, on revision having been filed by respondent No.3, Rajinder Singh, vide order dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P-3) allowed the revision, set aside the order (Annexure P-2) passed by Commissioner and upheld the order (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector, essentially on the ground that unless the order passed by Collector is found to be patently wrong and illegal, the same should not be interfered with. 3. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel in regard to comparative merit CWP No.7597 of 2011 [3] of the candidates. 4. District Collector has taken into account relevant facts and circumstances of the case while directing appointment of respondent, Rajinder Singh as Lambardar. No demerit in the claim of respondent Rajinder Singh can be traced, such as suggesting that Rajinder Singh has a criminal background or is a person of dubious character. In such circumstances, decision taken by District Collector who is the revenue officer and who is to take work from Lambardar, is required to be given due credence. Since no perversity in the order passed by District Collector can be traced, I find no reason to interfere with well reasoned order passed by the Financial Commissioner viz. Annexure P-3 dated 23.7.2010. 5. No ground for judicial review of order dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P-3) is made out. 6. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) May 02, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?