The Financial Commissioner, while interfering with the order passed by the Commissioner, has returned a finding about veracity of the documents presented by respondent No.4 and has held that these could not be doubted. In fact, the Financial Commissioner had given chance to the counsel for the petitioner to challenge the veracity of the documents on an affidavit so that primafacie case was made out, warranting further proof. He also found that order dated 21.12.2004 of Tehsildar, directing Patwari to do the munadi for inviting applications, being an official record could not be doubted. The counsel for the petitioner was not willing to formally challenge the said documents. In view of this position, the Financial Commissioner has rightly held that the comparison of the petitioner with that of respondent No.4 would not be called for as otherwise the petitioner was not a candidate who had made an application within the stipulated period. Having found that munadi had been done in the village and that proclamation for inviting applications could not be and should not be done again and again, on a slightest pretext. Financial Commissioner found that factum of munadi was established by the official record and could not be discarded on conjecture and frivolous presumptions. He accordingly set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and upheld the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The view taken by the Financial
