Civil Writ Petition No. 19431 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19431 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 26, 2011 Vijay Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. P.S. Sikand, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. A vacancy of Lambardar in SC category in Village Garhi Mundo, Tehsil Jagadhri, was created due to death of earlier Lambardar. Process to elect new Lambardar was set in motion. SDO (Civil) Jagadhari recommended the name of the petitioner. The Collector, Yamuna Nagar, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 28.7.2009. Respondent No.3 filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, who as per the allegation, without considering the facts on record, appointed respondent No.3 as Lambardar by upsetting the order passed by the Collector. The Civil Writ Petition No. 19431 of 2010 -2- Financial Commissioner has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner. As per the settled law, the choice as exercised by the Collector generally, is not to be interfered with except where the order discloses the lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact, so as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. See Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurdial Singh Versus Iqbal Singh, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 283. Without considering this scope of law, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have interfered in the choice exercised by the Collector. It is noticed that the Financial Commissioner has simply recorded his order that respondent No.3 is younger as well as better qualified. How he has said so, and whether this would be a ground for the Financial Commissioner to uphold or interfere in the order passed by the Collector, would also have to be kept in view. I am, thus, of the considered view that the Financial Commissioner has not applied his mind in a proper manner to the relevant law and the scope of interference in such like cases. Accordingly, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is set aside. This case is remanded back to the Financial Commissioner to reconsider the case in accordance with law and to pass any appropriate order. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 25.8.2011. The Financial Commissioner is requested to decide the matter within some time bound period. July 26, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE