Civil Writ Petition No. 19301 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19301 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 26, 2011 Gurdial Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The Financial Commissioner, Punjab & 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. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. On account of death of earlier Lambardar, a post of Lambardar fell vacant in Village Gandhran, Tehsil Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. The petitioner was one of the applicant for the said post. He is 40 years old and owner of 3.5 acres of land. He has been a Panch of Gram Panchayat besides holding some other offices. Respondent No.4 also applied for the said post, who is 25 years old and 10+2 pass. His name was recommended by S.D.M. The Collector appointed respondent No.4 on the ground that he is younger in age and more educated. The Commissioner and Civil Writ Petition No. 19301 of 2010 -2- Financial Commissioner has upheld the choice exercised by the Collector. The petitioner, therefore, has impugned the said orders through the present writ petition. Solitary grievance made by the petitioner is that respondent No.4 himself has mentioned in his application that he did not own any land at the time of submitting the said application. Counsel has referred to the application to substantiate his plea in this regard. The impugned order, however, passed by the Financial Commissioner has noticed that respondent No.4 was owning 4 kanals land besides the share, which would come to him from his father. This may be the position at the time of consideration, but actual position is as reflected above. As per the counsel this land was subsequently shown in the name of the petitioner. Be that as it may, all these matters were required to be considered by the Collector, who has to take work from the Lambardar. Once the Collector has exercised his choice on the basis of the material that was placed before him, no case for interference would be made out on this ground especially when the same is upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 26, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE