Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of death of Harbans Lal son of Hira Lal, the post of Lambardar of village Pharaya Mal Wala, Tehsil & Distt.Ferozepur, had fallen vacant. Ultimately, five candidates, namely, Baldev Raj son of Harbans Lal (petitioner), Bakshish Singh son of Bhan Singh (respondent No.3), Harjit Singh son of Kartar Singh (respondent No.4), Baldev Singh son of Buta Singh (respondent No.5) and Kuldeep Raj son of Harbans Lal (respondent No.6) applied and lodged their respective claims for the indicated post of Lambardar.

2. Having considered the respective merits and de-merits of the candidates and after following the due procedure, as contemplated under the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the relevant Rules”), the District Collector, Ferozepur (respondent No.2) appointed Bakshish Singh (respondent No.3) on the post of Lambardar, by virtue of impugned order dated 3.11.2010 (Annexure P1).

3. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P1), petitioner Baldev Raj filed appeal No.1 of 2011, whereas Harjit Singh son of Jaswant Singh filed another appeal No.84 of 2010, which were dismissed as well, by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division (respondent No.1), by way of impugned order dated 19.4.2011 (Annexure P2).

4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders and preferred the instant writ petition, invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition.

6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that the petitioner is more meritorious candidate than respondent No.3 and since the District Collector and the Commissioner have wrongly ignored his (petitioner) claim, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 & P2) deserve to be set aside, sans merit.

7. As is evident from the record that, the fields officers have recommended the name of respondent No.3 for appointment as a Lambardar. He is a young man of 40 years, 5th class passed, can read & write Punjabi. He is owner of land measuring 52 kanals 17 marlas and he has clean record in this respect. On the contrary, it is not a matter of dispute that a criminal case was registered against petitioner Baldev Raj and his brother Kuldeep Raj (respondent No.6) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC, vide FIR No.216 dated 1.10.2009.

8. The celebrated submission of learned counsel that as the police has recommended for cancellation of the case, therefore, it cannot be considered his demerit, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted) that the investigating agency has recommended the case for cancellation, but the fact remains is that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for committing the heinous offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery etc., by means of indicated FIR. The mere fact that the police has recommended the cancellation of the case, ipso facto, is no ground to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar.

9. Moreover, the Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar. The appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector, being In-charge of the Administration. It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such persons in the office of Lambardar, who are eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates. The choice of the Collector