CWP-9738-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 236 CWP-9738-2019 Date of decision : 02.07.2026 Roop Singh ...... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhimanyu Antil, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner placed challenge to the order dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby Financial Commissioner remanded the matter back to the Collector to decide the case afresh by analysing comparative merit of the candidates. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once collector has appointed the petitioner, his decision ought not have been interfered with. He submits that the Collector rightly analysed the comparative merit of the candidates, yet the Financial Commissioner wrongly set aside the same and interfered in the revisional jurisdiction. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submits that the Collector appointed petitioner merely for having worked as Sarbra Lambardar. On comparative merit, the respondent is far superior as DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9738-2019 compared to the petitioner. Financial Commissioner thus rightly interfered and remanded the matter back to be decided afresh on the basis of comparative merit of the candidates. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. 5. From the records, it is discernible that there are three applicants namely Roop Singh-the petitioner, Satya Dev and Kamal Singh-the private respondent. Owing to furnishing a forged certificate by Satya Dev, he has been rightly weeded out from the selection process by the Collector. While appointing petitioner, the Collector observed as under:- “xx xx xx Candidate Kamal Singh is not residing in the village Gopi Khera. He is residing at Palwal. So that candidate Kamak Singh also could not appointed as Lambardar. Candidate Roop Singh is better candidate than other candidates. Candidate Roop Singh is parmanent resident of village Gopikhera. He is 10th pass young man. He has 1/1/4 acare land. He has knowledge of worked as Sarbra Lambardar. He motivated 5 cases of family planing. He is helping the work of Government. After verification of character it is found that he is good character person. SDO(C) Palwal recommended the name of Sataya Dev as report dated 31.03.2011 without seeing the documents and evidence and in the wrong way, I do not agree with the report of SDO(C). After seeing all the facts candidate Roop Singh has been appointed as Lambardar of village Gopi Khera.” 6. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition being argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the opinion of the Collector should not normally be interfered with, until and unless the same is found to be perverse. In the present case, admittedly, Kamal Singh- respondent is voter of village Gopikhera and has residence over there. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9738-2019 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that the order passed by the Collector being perverse, the authority rightly interfered with the same and directed the Collector to decide the matter afresh after analyzing the comparative merit of the candidates. 8. Finding no merits in the present writ petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 02.07.2026 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document