JUDGMENT Rekha Mittal, J. The appellant prays for setting aside order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. Counsel for the appellant submits that the District Collector, Ludhiana, appointed the appellant as Harijan Lambardar of village Rattan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, vide order dated 15.12.2004 and the order, passed by the Collector was upheld by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala as well as by the Financial Commissioner. Respondent No. 4 challenged the orders by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 11649 of 2009 and the matter was remitted to the Financial Commissioner in view of consensus between the parties. In compliance with order dated 08.12.2010, the Financial Commissioner sought a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana with respect to proclamation regarding notice to villagers inviting applications to fill up vacancy to the post of Lambardar. It is argued that the Financial Commissioner has, without assigning any legal and valid reason, held that no proclamation was conducted in the village and directed the District Collector to initiate fresh proceedings for filling up the post of Harijan Lambardar. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the illegality committed by the Financial Commissioner. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, dated 19.09.2012, should, therefore, be set aside. We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the records and find no reason to accept the appeal. The order passed in favour of the appellant in regard to his appointment as Lambardar was set aside in Civil Writ Petition No.11649 of 2009, decided on 08.12.2010, in view of the consensus between the parties. The appellant, therefore, cannot take any advantage of his earlier selection as Lambardar of the village. The Financial Commissioner, in compliance with the order, passed in the aforesaid civil writ petition, called for a report. The Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) submitted their reports and roznamcha report No. 416 dated 10.05.2004 of Halqua Patwari was received. On due consideration of the aforesaid reports and the rapat roznamcha, the Financial Commissioner recorded his findings which read as follows: “The Deputy Commissioner and S.D.M. have forwarded a copy of this report without comment. The Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) submitted their reports and roznamcha report No. 416 dated 10.05.2004 of Halqua Patwari was received. On due consideration of the aforesaid reports and the rapat roznamcha, the Financial Commissioner recorded his findings which read as follows: “The Deputy Commissioner and S.D.M. have forwarded a copy of this report without comment. I find that this report does not record the presence of any person during the proceedings, even the name of the chowkidar is not mentioned therein. It appears to be a perfunctory report that does not fulfill the basic requirement of a public proclamation (mushtri munadi) in a village. Hence, the revision Petition is accepted and the District Collector, Ludhiana is directed to initiate fresh proceedings for filling the vacancy of Lambardar (Harijan) in village Rattan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana(West).” The above finding has been affirmed, while dismissing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has, after appreciating the contentions of counsel for the appellant as well as finding recorded by the Financial Commissioner, arrived at a conclusion that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant as he can also apply for being appointed as Lambardar in response to the fresh process to be initiated by the District Collector, Ludhiana. It has also been recorded that as technicalities or niceties of law cannot be allowed to prevail over the substantial justice, the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant based on technicalities, cannot be accepted. The Financial Commissioner has recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no due and proper proclamation giving notice to the residents of the village in respect of initiation of proceedings to fill up the vacancy of Lambardar. The learned Single Judge rightly refused to reverse the finding of fact, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. We would like to record that even otherwise, in response to the proclamation, only three persons submitted their applications, out of which, two persons withdrew and the appellant was the only candidate left in the fray for being appointed as Lambardar. In a process of selection, a wide choice must be available to the concerned authority in order to appraise the merits and demerits of competing candidates and to find the best person, for being appointed as Lambardar of the village. In a process of selection, a wide choice must be available to the concerned authority in order to appraise the merits and demerits of competing candidates and to find the best person, for being appointed as Lambardar of the village. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed.