The appointment of Lambardar is an administrative act, and the Collector's selection should not be undone unless there is gross irregularity, perversity, or a patent error in the appointment. The subjective satisfaction of the Collector should be given due weightage, and the Collector should be given another opportunity to re-appreciate the merits of the candidates if there appears to be some ignorance regarding the appreciation of inter-se merits.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Financial Commissioner and the order dated 26.05.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Commissioner, Gurugaon whereby, well reasoned orders dated 28.10.2015, 17.01.2015 and 02.03.2016, have been set aside.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of Trikha Ram, Lambardar of village Jhabua, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari, post of Lambardar was declared vacant. Mustari Munadi was conducted in the village for inviting applications for the post of Lambardar. He has submitted that resultantly 10 candidates applied, out of which 2 candidates had withdrawn their candidature in favour of the petitioner, whereas, 1 candidate had withdrawn his candidature in favour of respondent No.2-Hukam Singh. Thereafter, three other candidates also withdrew their candidature in favour of Rattan Lal, who also lateron withdrew his candidature in favour of the petitioner. He submits that thereafter, their inter-se merits were seen, Assistant Collector Ist Grade recommended name of the petitioner for the post of Lambardar vide order dated 28.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) and forwarded his name to the SDM-cum-Collector, Bawal and thereafter, SDM-cum-Collector, Bawal again appreciated the entire merits of the petitioner and respondent No.2, and recommended the name of petitioner to the Collector, Rewari vide order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure P-2). He submits that on appreciation of the inter-se merits of both the candidates i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.2, the Collector appointed the petitioner a Lambardar of the Village vide order dated 02.03.2016 (Annexure P-3). He has submitted that aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Gurugram against the well reasoned orders dated 28.10.2015, 17.11.2015 and 02.03.2016. He has submitted that the learned Commissioner ignoring the facts on record and the law settled, set aside the order dated 02.03.2016 vide his order dated 26.05.2016 (Annexure P-4) and illegally remanded the case to the District Collector with a direction that respondent No.2-Hukam Singh may be appointed as Lambardar of the Village and to issue authority of Lambardari in his favour. He has submitted that aggrieved by the order of Appellate authority, the petitioner preferred revision before the learned Financial Commissioner. He has submitted that the case was argued by both the sides and learned revisional Court without appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the same vide order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure P-5). It is submitted that again aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2016, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP-1215-2017 and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court disposed of the same vide order dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure P-6) by setting aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2016 and matter was remanded to the learned Financial Commissioner for decision afresh. It is submitted that after remand of the case, the learned Financial Commissioner again heard the case, but failed to appreciate the submissions made by the petitioner and the law settled and thus, dismissed the same again vide order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-7). He has submitted that the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that as per facts on record, the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.2 and hence, he was rightly appointed by the Collector as Lambardar of the Village. He has submitted that on the comparison of inter-se merits of both the petitioner and respondent No.2, it is apparent that the petitioner is BA, B.Ed by qualification and owns 2 acres of land in the village and out of total 10 candidates, 6 candidates withdrew their candidatures in his favour. He has submitted that that the petitioner is 30