C.W.P.No. 18795 of 2009. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 18795 of 2009. DECIDED ON : 8.12.2009. Naresh Kumar Petitioner. VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. PERMOD KOHLI,J. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.6 as Lambardar for village Bhana, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal. Briefly stated, the facts as emerged on the record, are that vacancy of Scheduled Caste Lambardar is vacant in village Bhana on account of death of Bheg Chand. With a view to fill up vacant post , the Tehsildar after obtaining permission from the Collector, Kaithal, made a proclamation and as many as seven applications C.W.P.No. 18795 of 2009. 2 were received. However during the proceedings five of the candidates withdrew their candidatures and petitioner and respondent No.6 were the only contesting candidates for the post of Lambardar. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, after going through the suitability, recommended the candidature of the petitioner to the Collector for appointment as Lamberdar, but the Collector, after hearing both the parties, appointed respondent No.6 as a Lambardar vide order dated 1.2.2008. The said order was challenged by way of two separate appeals, one filed by the present writ petitioner and another filed by one Baiwant, who pleaded for fresh proclamation. The Commissioner heard both the appeals and decided the same vide order dated 17.9.2008 while appeal of Baiwant was dismissed and appeal preferred by present petitioner was allowed. Aggrieved of the same, private respondent No.6 appealed before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, has accepted the appeal of respondent No.6 and set aside the order of the Commissioner, whereby the present petitioner was appointed as Lambardar. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The main ground on behalf of the petitioner is C.W.P.No. 18795 of 2009. 3 that a criminal case has been registered against respondent No.6 who is illiterate. It is further contended that the petitioner is matriculate and is suitable for the post of Lambardar. The Collector, while preferring respondent No.6, has noticed that respondent No.6 is 8th class pass and he has the experience of Lambardar as being the nephew of the deceased Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner has also observed that petitioner Naresh Kumar has produced two birth certificates, one showing date of birth as 1977 whereas in the matriculation certificate date of birth is shown as 1984. Regarding registration of criminal case it is still under investigation and no conviction has been recorded so far. The Financial Commissioner, accordingly, rejected the order of the Commissioner and upheld that of the Collector. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned orders. The Collector in his order dated 1.2.2008 has considered all the aspects and preferred respondent No. 6, being Scheduled Caste candidate belonging to “Chamar” community, experienced and being nephew of the deceased lambardar. The Commissioner set aside the order of Collector mainly on the ground that the criminal C.W.P.No. 18795 of 2009. 4 case has been registered against the respondent. Mere registration of a criminal case is no disqualification. It is well settled that normally the order of Collector should not be interfered with unless it is perverse. The Financial Commissioner has rightly restored the order of the Collector, appointing respondent No.6 as Lambardar. I do not find any valid ground to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. 08.12.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI ) Anoop JUDGE