JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (Oral):- This order proposes to decide two identical writ petitions bearing CWP No.2949 of 2011 (Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana and others) and CWP No.6731 of 2011 (Gian Chand v. State of Haryana and others), both having been filed against the same impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner, thereby restoring the order passed by District Collector, Panchkula, appointing respondent Garibu as Lambardar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the death of Shri Ram Kishan on 14.7.2002, one post of Backward Class Lambardar fell vacant in village Bharoli, Tehsil and District, Panchkula. Proceedings were initiated. Naib Tehsildar as well as Tehsildar recommended the name of respondent Garibu for appointment to the post of Lambardar, whereas Sub-Divisional Officer recommended the name of Mohan Lalpetitioner, for appointment as Lambardar. However, after closely examining the comparative merits of the candidates, District Collector, Panchkula, vide his order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) appointed Garibu-respondent as Lambardar. Two appeals were filed before the Commissioner by the petitioners Mohan Lal and Gian Chand. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, allowed the appeal of Mohan Lalpetitioner and dismissed the appeal of Gian Chand. While setting aside the order of District Collector, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, appointed Mohan Lal-petitioner as Lambardar. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner, Gian Chand-petitioner as well as respondent Garibu approached the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated 31.2.2012(Annexure P-4) petition filed by Gian Chand was dismissed. However, while setting aside the order of Commissioner, Ambala Division, Financial Commissioner restored the order of District Collector, Panchkula, thereby upholding the appointment of respondent Garibu as Lambardar. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the above-said order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Mohan Lal-petitioner has filed CWP No.2949 of 2011, whereas petitioner Gian Chand has challenged all the three orders passed by the revenue authorities by way of separate writ petition bearing CWP No.6731 of 2011. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. 4. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply was filed by respondent No.3-Gian Chand, whereas no reply was filed to the second writ petition filed by Gian Chand. 5. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. 4. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply was filed by respondent No.3-Gian Chand, whereas no reply was filed to the second writ petition filed by Gian Chand. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mohan Lal submits that the order passed by the Collector as well as Financial Commissioner were illegal thereby appointing respondent Garibu as Lambardar, whereas the order passed by the Commissioner was factually correct as well as legally justified, whereby the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar. He submits that Monan Lal-petitioner was better qualified and was having clear edge over both the respondents, i.e. Garibu and Gian Chand. He was having more land and was more qualified than both the other candidates. His name was recommended by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. His family was having sufficient influence in the area as his father as well as grandmother had been the Sarpanch of the village, whereas his mother was Chairperson of Block Samiti. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner Mohan Lal relied upon the judgments of this Court in Gurmail Singh Lambardar v. State of Punjab and others, [2010(4) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 3513] : 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 308, Daler Singh v. Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretarty, Revenue, Haryana and others, 2012(2) PLR 119, Sardool Singh v. Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab and others, 2007(1) L.AR. 552, Gurbachan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and others, 2001 (1) PLJ 254 , Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, [2012(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1207] : 2012(3) L AR 137 and Jatan Pal v. F inancial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others, 2012 (3) LAR 96. He concluded by submitting that since the comparative merit of the petitioner Mohan Lal has not been properly considered by the Collector and Financial Commissioner, in the right perspective, the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner was illegal. The order passed by the Commissioner deserves to be restored. He finally prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Gian Chand submits that Mohan Lal petitioner was defaulter of the Panchkula Central Cooperative Bank, as per the communication, Annexure R-3. Since petitioner Mohan Lal was disqualified for appointment to the post of Lambardar, in view of the relevant provisions of law, he was not rightly appointed by the Collector as well as by the Financial Commissioner. Since petitioner Mohan Lal was disqualified for appointment to the post of Lambardar, in view of the relevant provisions of law, he was not rightly appointed by the Collector as well as by the Financial Commissioner. Further, an FIR No.84 dated 10.9.2008 was also pending against petitioner Mohan Lal, when he was appointed by an illegal order passed by the Commissioner. He next contended that Mohan Lal-petitioner made a misleading statement that he was owner of 5 ½ acres of land, which was contrary to the revenue record, Annexure R-2. Petitioner Mohan Lal was also working as a Chowkidar because of which he should not have been appointed as Lambardar also by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. Besides this, Mohan Lal petitioner was not having any land in the relevant Patti for which the Lambardar was to be appointed. He further submits that Gian Chand was the most suitable candidate out of all the three contestants. He submits that since Mohan Lal petitioner has not filed any replication to the written statement, the above-said disqualifications, pointed out against the petitioner Mohan Lal, amount to be admitted by him. Learned counsel for Gian Chand-petitioner also submits that since there was nothing objectionable against the candidature of Gian Chand, he was a better candidate than respondent Garibu. He was more qualified than Garibu. He had been participating in the development works carried by the Government and had been supporting the State policies. There was no allegation against Gian Chand that he was loanee of Cooperative Society. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Garibu submits that the impugned orders passed by the District Collector as well as Financial Commissioner are based on true facts and were also justified in law. He further submits that the illegality committed by the Commissioner in upsetting the choice of Collector has been rightly set right by the Financial Commissioner. Finally, he submits that both the writ petitions were without any merit and were liable to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that both these writ petitions are misconceived and without any merit. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that both these writ petitions are misconceived and without any merit. No interference is called for at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 9. It is the settled proposition of law that the choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with lightly by the higher revenue authorities. Although this is not an absolute rule in every given fact situation, yet until and unless the order passed by the Collector appointing Lambardar is found to be suffering from patent illegality, perversity or any jurisdictional error, it would not be liable to be set aside by the Commissioner and/or Financial Commissioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Collector nor it has been so recorded by the Commissioner, while passing his impugned order. In this view of the matter, Financial Commissioner has rightly set aside the order passed by the Commissioner thereby restoring the order passed by District Collector. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the orders passed by the District Collector as well as the Financial Commissioner are factually correct as well as sustainable in law because none of these orders have been found to be suffering from patent illegality, perversity or any jurisdictional error. 10. Both the petitioners have been levelling allegations and counter allegations against each other. However, from the perusal of the record, it has been revealed that both these petitioners do not belong to the Reeti-patti to which this vacancy of Lambardar belongs. Neither of the petitioners has any land in this Patti. So far as the educational qualification is concerned, it is not as such prescribed under the relevant rules. Respondent Garibu is not an illiterate person though he may not be well qualified. Further, Mohan Lal petitioner was working as Chowkidar. Neither of the petitioners has any land in this Patti. So far as the educational qualification is concerned, it is not as such prescribed under the relevant rules. Respondent Garibu is not an illiterate person though he may not be well qualified. Further, Mohan Lal petitioner was working as Chowkidar. He made a misleading statement before the authorities claiming to be the owner of 5 ½ acres of land, whereas as per Annexure R-2, it is not correct. When he was appointed as Lambardar by the Commissioner, FIR, Annexure R-1, was pending against him, although, he came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 14.9.2011. He prima facie seems to be a defaulter, as per Annexure R-3. He has not denied all these allegations by filing replication. In this view of the matter, once petitioner Mohan Lal was suffering from so many disqualifications, pointed out hereinabove, he was rightly not appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector as well as by the Financial Commissioner. Because of this factual difference in the set of circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mohan Lal are of no help to him, being distinguishable on facts. 11. Similarly, Gian Chand petitioner also does not belong to Ratti-patti. He was not having any land in this patti. There was an allegation against Gian Chand-petitioner levelled by Mohan Lal petitioner that he was the defaulter of Cooperative Society. Thus, petitioner Gian Chand was also not enjoying clean image. On the other hand, the District Collector, before coming to the conclusion in favour of respondent Garibu, has considered the comparative merit of all the three candidates. Having clear edge on the remaining two candidates namely Mohan Lal and Gian Chand, petitioners, another factor in favour of respondent Garibu was that he was also having the knowledge and experience about the duties and functions of the post of Lambardar because his father and grandfather had been village Lambardar. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent Garibu was granted the benefit of hereditary claim, is misplaced and without any substance because he has not been appointed being the son or grandson of the Lambardar. On the other hand, after a close scrutiny of the comparative merits of all the three candidates, District Collector rightly found Garibu to be the most suitable candidate. On the other hand, after a close scrutiny of the comparative merits of all the three candidates, District Collector rightly found Garibu to be the most suitable candidate. In this view of the matter, District Collector committed no error of law while observing that respondent Garibu was also having the knowledge and experience about the duties and functions of the post of Lambardar. 12. Keeping in view the peculiar fact situation discussed hereinabove, it is unhesitatingly held that the District Collector, Panchkula, as well as Financial Commissioner have rightly decided to appoint respondent Garibu as Lambardar. The impugned orders have not been found to be suffering from patent illegality, perversity or any jurisdictional error. No other argument was raised. 13. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, both these writ petitions are bereft of any merit and without any substance, thus, these must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed.