IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 22965 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.07.2011 Moti Puri ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for respondent No. 4. RANJIT SINGH J. Due to death of Hira Nand Puri, Namberdar the post of Namberdar of village Ram Thali fell vacant. The proceedings were initiated to fill up the post. 15 persons applied but ultimately two candidates remained in the fray. Tehsildar had recommended the name of respondent No. 4 for appointment. He was ultimately appointed by the Collector on 25.11.2008 against which the petitioner filed an appeal. The Commissioner dismissed the same on 29.04.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner, who has also dismissed the revision on 21.09.2010. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present writ petition to impugn this order. Civil Writ Petition No. 22965 of 2010 -2- The primary grievance of the petitioner is that two factors, which the Collector has taken into consideration to appoint respondent No. 4 and to hold against the petitioner are both misconceived. Counsel has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Collector whereby he has noticed that as per the revenue record seen from Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, Moti Puri, petitioner has been shown in unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land. Reference is also made to order dated 10.12.2003 to notice that Moti Puri tried to get unauthorized possession of Common Chowk/land. As per the counsel for the petitioner, the reasons as mentioned, are not borne out from the record. It is stated that civil Court injunction as relied would be ultimately become redundant because the suit was dismissed in favour of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was involved in a litigation concerning possession. He may have succeeded but at the time of consideration for appointment, this fact could be so noticed. The Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have also upheld the choice of the Collector. As per the settled position of law, the choice of Collector is final 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. Accordingly, the choice of the Collector is to be treated as final. Civil Writ Petition No. 22965 of 2010 -3- It is not for the Court to compare relative merits of the candidates to come to any different conclusion. It is the Collector, who has to take work from Namberdar. He is the best judge to make selection. There is no viable or valid reason, which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Incidentally, the counsel for the petitioner has also pleaded that both the candidates were not eligible as per the new rules, they being not 8th class pass. That aspect has not been considered and it will not be appropriate for this Court to go into this aspect. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 25, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE