Irrespective of the conclusion drawn hereinabove, only one of the two candidates has to be chosen. The Collector, Gurgaon, as well as , the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, have chosen respondent No. 5, for appointment against the post of Lambardar. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid determination, nor can the said determination be termed as perverse. It is only when a perverse order is passed selecting a candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar ignoring a candidate far superior to him, there can be interference at the level of the appellate or revsional authorities. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, we are of the view, that the selection of Lambardar was made after due consideration. One of the primary issue of consideration, which weighed with the authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, was that he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, for the commission of an offence under Sections 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Although there can be no denial about the fact of the petitioner having been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, yet it can also not be ignored, that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon dated 10.11.2003, convicting Krishan Kumar was impugned by him, by preferring an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, and the appeal preferred by Krishan Kumar was dismissed on 17.08.2004.
