LPA No. 1465 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 1465 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2010 Sadhu Ram ....Appellant. Versus Financial Commissioner and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Present appeal is filed challenging order dated 26.5.2009 passed by learned Single Judge upholding the order of the Collector appointing the petitioner as Lamberdar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that applications for the post of Lamberdar under Scheduled Castes category for village Brahminiwala, were invited. Petitioner and respondent No.4 along with others applied for the same and in the last, there was contest between the petitioner and respondent No.4 only. Vide order dated 19.6.2006, the Collector appointed the petitioner as Lamberdar of the village after assessing the comparative LPA No. 1465 of 2009 2 merits of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. However, the Commissioner in appeal remanded the matter to the Collector for reconsideration. Again, the Collector made assessment between the petitioner and respondent No.4. This time, the Collector appointed respondent No.4 as Lamberdar. Order of the Collector was challenged before the appellate authority and the revisional authority. However, the appeal and revision were dismissed. Thereafter, this Court was approached by the petitioner. Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgement allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner upholding the order of the Collector passed in first-round dated 19.6.2006. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned Single Judge should not have disturbed the view taken by the Collector appointing respondent No.4 vide order dated 24.7.2007. 5. Undisputedly, comparative merit between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is as under: - “Sadhu Ram Pala Ram Age 60 years 34 years Qualifications 4th pass 8th pass Children 5 2 Land Nil Nil Work Dairy Farming Shop Small savings 9,00,000/-after motivation 5,000/- self” 6. In the first round, the Collector made assessment in favour of the petitioner considering his age, youth and that he is more qualified than LPA No. 1465 of 2009 3 respondent No.4 and having only two children. 7. We while relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram and others, 2009(3) 439, have taken the view in LPA No.62 of 2009 decided on 25.3.2009 that ordinarily opinion of the Collector is final and should not be disturbed. 8. Applying the ratio, we find that the Commissioner was not correct in the first round to disturb the opinion of the Collector appointing the petitioner as Lamberdar. We fail to understand that after the remand what was the special ground in favour of respondent No.4 appointing him Lamberdar in place of the petitioner. 9. Ordinarily, exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and appeal derived therefrom, this Court does not re- appreciate evidence. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that learned Single Judge was absolutely correct while upholding the opinion of the Collector dated 19.6.2006 in the first round of selection. We ourselves have compared the merits of the petitioner and respondent No.4 and find that view taken by learned Single Judge is correct. 10. Appeal is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 29.03.2010 sk.