case itself appears to have been registered in FIR No.65 dated 21.05.1984 for alleged offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326 IPC. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent circulated the copy of the judgment. I have seen through it to find that the prosecution case failed by the fact that the persons, who had been cited witnesses had not been examined and only the complainant Girdhara Singh had deposed that about 22/23 years back when he was going back to Harguli, heated arguments had taken place that resulted in clash of blows. Though the case ended in an acquittal, it could not have been totally irrelevant for the Collector to consider his status at the time of issuing the order of appointment. The rule 15 refers to the personal influence, character and ability. Again though the possession or otherwise of property itself ought not to be a sole ground for rejecting a person's candidature to public appointment, the rule makes relevant the possession of property of an eligible candidate. The fact that the selected candidate had no property at all at the time when he made the application but who makes the deficiency subsequent to his application by purchase of property ought not to be irrelevant. The Collector ought to have seen whether the acquisition was genuine or he had made himself eligible by some fraudulent or nominal transaction at the time when the Assistant Collector was giving his recommendation that he had observed that the 6th respondent did not own any land. Admittedly, the 6th respondent had no property before the last date of submission of the application. The counsel for the respondents would contend that even a subsequent acquisition of property was relevant and considered so by the Financial Commissioner. The criminal antecedence and the possession of properties, in the manner required under the rules, do not appear to have been considered by the Collector. On the other hand, the order appointing
