Ranjit Singh, J.@mdashThe Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar of the village. This order was upheld by the Commissioner. The Financial
Commissioner, however, chose to interfere with this order on the ground that the merits of the candidates were not properly discussed. Counsel
for the petitioner would submit that the Financial Commissioner could not have interfered with the choice exercised by the Collector unless the
same was found to be perverse and arbitrary in any manner. Without recording any such finding, the choice is illegal or perverse, the Financial
Commissioner has interfered with the same.
2. Earlier, in the year 2004, the Collector had appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar but this appointment was set aside by the Commissioner
or an appeal filed by the petitioner. The order become final as it was not challenged by respondent No. 4. Thus, the earlier appointment of
respondent No. 4 would not have any material bearing on the case.
3. It is now to be seen if the Financial Commissioner has rightly and legally interfered with the choice exercised by the collector or not. This
apparently is beyond the parameters and sweep of his jurisdiction. It is fairly settled that Financial Commissioner can interfere with choice of
Collector if the same is arbitrary or capricious. It may not be appropriate for him to simply differ with the Collector by comparing the merits of the
candidates. It would, therefore, be appropriate to remand this case to the Financial Commissioner to consider if there is any perversity or
arbitrariness in exercise of power or passing the order on the part of the Collector while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. If the Financial
Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the choice is arbitrary etc. he would be at liberty to interfere with the impugned orders. Purely on
factual and appreciation of merits, it may not be very appropriate for the Financial Commissioner to interfere with the choice of Collector. This
would be as per the law laid down by this Court in number of judgments. Reference here can be made to a decision in Civil Writ Petition No.
18945 of 2007 titled as Balwant Singh versus State of Haryana and others decided 09.01.2009.
4. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Financial Commissioner to re-consider the same in the light of observation
made above. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 08.08.2012. The present writ petition is,
accordingly, disposed of.
