JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were contenders for the post of village Lambardar. The Collector by his order dated September 12, 1994 selected the petitioner. The fourth respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner. It was accepted. The order passed by the Collector was set aside. The case was remanded for a fresh decision. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner. He filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The revisional authority not only dismissed the revision, but also made an observation that the petitioner having given wrong date of birth was hardly suitable for appointment as a Lambardar. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. Notice of motion was issued. 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Financial Commissioner could have at best dismissed the petition. He could not have made observations on merits. On the other hand Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has pointed out that only facts have been mentioned by the Financial Commissioner. The inference therefrom is irresistible and that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner while applying for the post had given his age as 55 years. The Collector while considering the matter had observed that if was "a clerical mistakes." The fourth respondent contested this. It was pointed out that the Collector had got an inquiry conducted. The S.D.O. (Civil) had submitted a report dated May 28, 1994. According to the report, the petitioners age at the time of the submission of the application was 68 years and not 55 years. On this the Commissioner had observed that the "respondent is an old man of 70 years..... in case a person of the age of 70 years is appointed as a Lambardar, then he will be able to discharge the work of Lambardar for a very less period and, therefore, in his place new Lambardar will have to be appointed.......". Thus he had set aside the appointment of the petitioner and remanded the case to the Collector. It may be added here that at the time of passing of the order by the Commissioner, the petitioner was nearly 70 years of age. 6. Thus he had set aside the appointment of the petitioner and remanded the case to the Collector. It may be added here that at the time of passing of the order by the Commissioner, the petitioner was nearly 70 years of age. 6. The petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner. He admittedly claims that the finding recorded by the Collector was correct. The Financial Commissioner had to examine this contention. In doing so he has noticed the factual position. He has observed that in the circumstances of the case, the mistake could not be described as merely clerical. A man of 70 years could not say that he was 55 years of age. He inferred that it was a deliberate attempt and reflection on "the character of the appellant." 7. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Financial Commissioner. While appointing person to an office of trust, his conduct is a relevant consideration. A person who is nearly 70 years of age had tried to get the appointment by claiming that he was only 55 years old. The mistake, as observed by the Financial Commissioner, was not merely clerical. It was an attempt to get the office by claiming that the applicant was likely to discharge the duties for sufficiently long time. It was not a bona fide act. 8. No other point has been raised. 9. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that the competent authority shall consider the factual position independently and uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court. No costs. Petition dismissed.