JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner and respondent No. 4, amongst others, were the contenders for the office of village Headman. Vide order dated April 3, 1998 the Collector selected and appointed the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner on August 27, 1999. The petitioner filed a revision petition. It has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated August 10, 2000. Hence this petition. 2. The petitioner prays that the orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P1, P2 and P4, be quashed. He also alleges that respondent No. 4 should not have been appointed as a criminal case had been registered against him vide F.I.R. dated June 29, 2000. 3. We have heard Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner was wrongly excluded on the ground that he was working as a Conductor in the Roadways. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 4 should not have been considered to be suitable as a criminal case is pending against him. 4. The power to select and appoint a village Headman vests primarily with the Collector. He had admittedly considered the claim of the petitioner as also the other candidates. On consideration of the matter he had found that the 4th respondent is "more meritorious, educated and fit candidate.....". Thus, he selected him. The petitioners appeal was considered by the Commissioner and the findings recorded by the Collector were affirmed. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it was held that "the duties of Conductor keep changing and in case he is put on some long distance route then even if he is ordinarily resident in the village, he would be away for extended periods. This would seriously handicap him in discharging his duties as Lambardar". Thus, the order of the Collector was affirmed. Even the Financial Commissioner has found that the view taken by the Collector was not such as to call for any interference. 5. As for the second contention, it is clear that only a case has been registered. No finding of guilt has been recorded. No adverse inference can be drawn at this stage. 6. We find that there is no error of jurisdiction or illegality in the order so as to warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. As for the second contention, it is clear that only a case has been registered. No finding of guilt has been recorded. No adverse inference can be drawn at this stage. 6. We find that there is no error of jurisdiction or illegality in the order so as to warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. No other point has been raised. 8. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.