Civil Writ Petition No.19126 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19126 of 2008 Anil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, Chandigarh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Raj Singh, respondent No.4, has been appointed as a Lambardar of the village. He is a grand-son of Hari Singh, who was earlier the Lambardar. Upon death of Hari Singh, one Surender Singh was appointed as Lambardar, who was removed on 21.10.1998. Pursuant to the process set in motion for fresh selection, the petitioner and some other persons, including respondent No.4, applied for being appointed as a Lambardar. Tehsildar and the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) recommended the name of respondent No.4 for appointment. Collector thereafter appointed respondent No.4 as Civil Writ Petition No.19126 of 2008 : 2 : Lambardar on 28.10.2003. The Collector considered certain factors while appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Feeling aggrieved against the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed. So was the fate of his revision filed before the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner has impugned all these orders through the present writ petition. Notice of motion was issued primarily on a submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, it was noticed that he alongwith his brother had caused obstructions in the development work of the Gram Panchayat and has occupied the Panchayat drain. He was accused of having committed a theft of the electricity account in the name of father of Anil Kumar and has paid the penalty. The counsel for the petitioner has challenged correctness of these observations on the ground that the same had not been rightly appreciated by the Commissioner as well as by the Financial Commissioner while rejecting the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner. Counsel for respondent No.4 has filed reply and had pointed out that this material was available on the record of the file of the Collector. On request made, he has placed on record a copy of the complaint making a reference to the aspect of hindrance created by the petitioner in construction work of the drain and street being carried out under the supervision of the Panchayat. This complaint has been taken on record vide separate order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that except for complaint, no material has been placed before the court to show that any action had followed on this. The counsel would maintain that no Civil Writ Petition No.19126 of 2008 : 3 : action was ever taken against the petitioner and he was not even asked to say anything or served a show cause notice. Dehors this, counsel submits that the petitioner has a better merit than respondent No.4 and certain factors were not considered by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. He is younger in age and having a better educational qualification. These factors, according to the counsel, have not been considered by the Collector while appointing respondent No.4, who was less educated and may have some small marginal better merit to show in regard to small savings or family planning etc. Counsel accordingly submits that the choice exercised by the Collector is illegal. It has consistently been held that as a general rule, choice of Collector is final and 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 choice of the Collector is to be preferred as he is to take into consideration the relative merits. No submission is made to show lack of jurisdiction or error of fact or arbitrariness, which would call for interference in the choice exercised by the Collector. It would not be for this court to weigh relative merits. No case for interference, therefore, is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. July 22, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE