JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner and the third respondent were contenders for the office of the Village Lambardar. The Collector selected the third respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal was accepted by the Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner having been reversed by the Finance Commissioner, the petitioner has approached this court through the present writ petition. 2. We have heard Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner is younger in age. He is better qualified and has more land than the respondent. Thus, the Financial Commissioner has erred in interfering with the order passed by the Commissioner. Is it so ? 3. A perusal of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner indicates that even though the third respondent at the relevant time was 60 years of age, while the petitioner was 40 years old, the respondent had worked for three years as a Lambardar. He had also remained a Member of the Panchayat on three occasions. He was more acceptable to the village community. Still further the Financial Commissioner has observed that the selection had to be made by the Collector. Once the selection had been properly made, the higher authorities could interfere only if the view taken by the Collector was found to be perverse or contrary to law. Since the order passed by the Collector was just and reasonable, the Commissioner should not have interfered with it. 4. We find that the view taken by the Financial Commissioner is just and fair. It is true that on weighing the respective merits, an authority may be able to take a view different from the one taken by the competent authority. Yet, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution would be warranted only if there is a patent error leading to failure of justice or violation of law. In the present case the view taken by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner is a possible one. It is reasonable. They could have thought that a person, who has been elected as a Panch by the village community, would be better suited to look after the affairs of the village than another, who had not been so elected. 5. Mr. Chopra contends that a case was pending against the third respondent when he was selected by the Collector for appointment. They could have thought that a person, who has been elected as a Panch by the village community, would be better suited to look after the affairs of the village than another, who had not been so elected. 5. Mr. Chopra contends that a case was pending against the third respondent when he was selected by the Collector for appointment. He further refers to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Inderaj v. Financial Commissioner and others, 1994 P.L.J. 473 (SC), to contend that the relevant date for consideration of the suitability is the date of appointment. There is no quarrel with the proposition. So far as the present case is concerned, it is true that an F.I.R. had been lodged against the respondent. But on the relevant date there was merely an allegation. Ultimately, the respondent was, admittedly acquitted. In this situation, the Financial Commissioner has committed no error in taking the view that respondent No. 3 was not unsuitable for appointment as a Lambardar. 6. Mr. Chopra has also referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Tak Ram v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana and others, 1998(2) P.L.J. 9. The factual position in this case is different. The Bench had upheld the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and dismissed the petition. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, consequently dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.