LPA No. 383 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 383 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision 18 .5.2009 Ishwar Singh ... Appellant Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. RD Bawa,Advocate for the appellant 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 26.3.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 4767of 2009 upholding the appointment of Dharampal, respondent no. 4 to the office of Lambardar. The learned Single Judge has concluded that the appellant was not given selection on the ground that there were some arrears pending against him. According to the views expressed by the learned Single Judge, the Collector had compared the comparative merits of the candidates for appointment to the office of Lambardar. The Collector has taken the view that Dharampal, respondent no. 4 was more suitable for the office of Lambardar as compared to the petitioner and accordingly Dharampal was given appointment. The learned Single Judge has also found no perversity in the view taken by the Collector. Mr.R.D.Bawa, learned counsel for the appellant has repeated LPA No. 383 of 2009(O&M) 2 the same arguments which he had urged before the learned Single Judge. After hearing the learned counsel, we find that when the Collector exercised jurisdiction over the selection for the office of Lambardar then the question of reconsideration of merits and demerits of a candidate cannot be examined by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court cannot substitute its opinion to that of the Collector even if another view is possible unless there is jurisdictional error or such a serious lapse committed by the Collector that no reasonable man would accept the choice of a candidate made by the Collector. We find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (H.S. Bhalla ) 18.5.2009 Judge okg