JUDGMENT AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Respondent No.6, Sanjay Kumar, after considering comparative merit of the applicants, was appointed as Lambardar by District Collector, Rewari, vide order dated 28.8.2008 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner carried an appeal which has been allowed vide order dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.6 filed a revision which has been allowed by Financial Commissioner vide Order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure P-3). 2. By way of this petition, petitioner (Samai Singh) has challenged Order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner on the ground that Commissioner has taken into account the comparative merit of the applicants and therefore it did not call for interference. 3. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.6 was convicted for offence committed under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, vide Order dated 8.1.1998. It has further been contended that the petitioner has better merit as compared to the private respondent. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 contends that he is a young man of 28 years and was appointed as Lambardar by Collector. Order dated 28.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector does not call for any interference. 5. I have considered the comparative merit of the petitioner vis-a-vis private respondent. 6. The petitioner is graduate; 52 years of age; ex-army personnel with commendations from the Chief of Army Staff; has served as Sarbrah Lambardar during the life time of his father who was a Lambardar; and owns 18 kanals of land. 7. Respondent No.6 is 28 years of age and matriculate. Admittedly, father of Sanjay Kumar (respondent No.6) owns land, however, no land has been mutated in the name of the private respondent. So far as social service is concerned, both the candidates have some deposits in their account and therefore, that aspect of the matter is comparable. 8. Considering the comparative merit of the petitioner with respondent No.6, Commissioner allowed the appeal of petitioner vide Order dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure P-2). There is detailed reference to every aspect noted above. 9. The Financial Commissioner has upset the order of Commissioner, vide Order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure P-3), primarily on the ground that Collector is the best judge to decide the suitability of a person and his discretion in the matter should not be interfered with unless it is proved beyond doubt that the selected person has positive disqualifications which debars him from appointment. 10. 10. Commissioner is the appellate authority and is required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, including comparative merit. It is not in dispute that respondent No.6 was convicted for commission of offence under Section 188 IPC, although in the year 1998. Other than that, the respondent is less educated as compared to the petitioner and does not own any land in his name. 11. Petitioner, to the contrary, is ex-army personnel with commendations to his credit. The service rendered to the country, while in the Army, cannot be ignored. Petitioner owns approximately 18 kanals of land, and is more educated. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the appellate forum i.e. Commissioner did not commit any illegality in interfering with the order passed by Collector. Considering the comparative merit, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was not appropriate for the Financial Commissioner to ignore the consideration of comparative merit of the applicants by the appellate forum i.e. the Commissioner. Higher education, Ex-Army status, conviction and land holding are relevant criteria to be taken into account. If this is not done, it shall be failure on the part of the appellate authority in exercising its appellate powers. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Order dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner has to be upheld. 12. Ordered accordingly. 13. The petition is allowed. Order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure P-3) is quashed.