Civil Writ Petition No.1139 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 23, 2009 Narain Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner, 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.R.K.Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent No.2 was appointed as a Lambardar by the Collector. This was interfered by the Commissioner in an appeal filed by the petitioner. While doing so, the Commissioner held as under:- “The character of Mr.Suresh Kumar is also not reliable. In Civil Writ Petition No.1139 of 2009 : 2 : order to improve his contribution in small savings, he fudged the pass-book/certificate issued by Post Office Deptt. The two certificates submitted by him for Rs.4.00 Lacs & 6.00 Lacs of small savings can be seen on page 85 & 96. After close scrutiny of these documents it can easily be seen that this is one pass-book for 6.00 Lacs. The other one of Rs.4.00 Lacs has been prepared bogus by changing the figures & words of `Six' to `Four' and figure `6' to `4'. The candidate has not given the correct account of his land holdings. He claims to be owner of one acre land whereas actually he is owner of only 0-9 Marlas land in revenue estate Sewli. After inquiry from revenue record, it is found that earlier he was owner of 7 Kanals 9 Marlas land and 7 kanals has gone under acquisition and thus he is owner of only 0-9 Marlas land. Even otherwise, comparison of merits of Shri Narain Singh, Jai Kanwar and respondent Shri Suresh Kumar shows that the appellant Narain Singh is most suitable candidate than the other candidates because he owns 2 acres agriculture land in comparison to 0-9 Marlas and ½ acre land owned by Suresh Kumar and Jai Kanwar respectively. Besides it, contribution of Narain Singh for social and religious purposes, is higher than the other candidates. Moreover, the resolution of Gram Panchayat is also in his favour. On these grounds, I do not agree with the choice of Collector and find the same as perverse.” Civil Writ Petition No.1139 of 2009 : 3 : Respondent, accordingly, approached the Financial Commissioner, who has considered the case and ultimately has taken a view that the choice of Collector should not be interfered with unless there is an illegality or infirmity in the order. The finding given by the Financial Commissioner reads as under:- “I have heard the counsels of the parties, gone through the record of the case. After considering the merits of the candidates, Collector found Suresh Kumar most suitable whereas Commissioner has found him unsuitable as he was unreliable and has only 9 marla of land. According to rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules and amended rules 2008, the inter-se merits of all the candidates need to be assessed. The Collector has considered the comparative merits of all the candidates and found Suresh Kumar fit for appointment as Lambardar. He has further held that Suresh Kumar is young & competent as compared to other candidates. He has deposited Rs.11.5 Lac in Small Savings Scheme & has motivated 4 cases of sterlization. He is more popular amongst the villagers and enjoys a good reputation. The counsel for Suresh Kumar has pleaded that the findings of Commissioner were based on conjectures and the documents were not examined. The law is well established that the choice of the Collector should not be interfere with unless there is an illegality or infirmity in the order. In view of this, I accept the revision petition and uphold the order dated 08.08.2007 of Collector, Sonepat.” Civil Writ Petition No.1139 of 2009 : 4 : The counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.1 did not deal with the observation of the Commissioner in regard to the conduct of respondent No.2 while setting-aside the order. Respondent No.1 has noted the submission that the observations were made by the Commissioner based on conjectures and documents were not examined. Thus, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 has not considered this aspect. The view taken by the Financial Commissioner would not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. January 23, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE