SANSAR CHAND Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(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?

(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.