J.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 along with various other persons were contenders for the office of the village Headman. Initially, Respondent No. 4 was selected and appointed by the Collector. However, on the Petitioner's complaint the case was remanded. Again, vide order dated July 3, 1998 the 4th Respondent was selected by the Collector. Aggrieved by the order, the Petitioner filed an appeal which was accepted by the Commissioner vide his order dated August 13, 1999 on the ground that the 4th Respondent had disclosed his age as 58 years while in fact he was 61 years old. Aggrieved by the order, the 4th Respondent filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was accepted vide order dated August 11, 2000. Hence the petition.
(2.) MR . Gill, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the Collector and the Financial Commissioner have erred in selecting the 4th Respondent. The claim of the Petitioner has been wrongly ignored. Is it so? The authorities have taken all the factors into consideration. In particular, it has been noticed that the 4th Respondent had rendered service in the Indian Army. He was decorated with the Raksha,Sangram Sewa and President's Medals for exemplary conduct. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, though he is a year younger and had claimed that his family had rendered service in the Army yet the fact remains that he had remained employed only with the Insurance Company. On comparison of the respective merits the competent authority has considered an Ex -serviceman to be better than a person who had worked in the Insurance Company. It cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or illegally.
(3.) MR . Gill contends that Respondent No. 4 had wrongly given his age as 58 years while in fact he was 3 years older. Assuming it to be so, he was still not disqualified from being considered. Still further, it is the admitted position that the 4th Respondent had produced his Discharge Certificate from the Indian Army which gave his date of birth. Even otherwise, there is no clear evidence regarding the Petitioner's age. At one of the places it has been suggested that he was 62 years old and not 60 years as claimed by him.;