Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral):- The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court on 21.10.2013 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner was set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the Collector appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar was restored.

2. After the death of Shri Ram Chand, Lambardar of village Baghana, the process for filling up for the post of Lambardar was initiated. Seven candidates applied for appointment. The process of appointment had an earlier round of litigation. The said round ended with the order of the Financial Commissioner, when the appeal of respondent No.4 was accepted on 11.04.2008. The matter was remanded with a direction to the Collector to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and after considering the contentions. After remand, the Collector considered the respective merits of the appellant and of respondent No.4 and found that respondent No.4 is 65 years of age; ex-serviceman; has obtained B.A. from Army; has a karyana shop; and has been given excellence certificate by the President of India on a Republic Day. Whereas the present appellant is young in age and educated but keeping in view the qualification and the status of respondent No.4, he was ordered to be appointed by the Collector. Such order was set aside by the Commissioner only for the reason that since the respondent No. 4 is running a karyana shop, therefore, he may not be available.

3. The learned Single Judge found that running of a karyana shop ensures his availability to the revenue officials and as well as to the villagers. Reference was made to [2011(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2733] : CWP No.782 of 2010 titled as “Sukhchain Singh Vs. The Financial Commissioner and others”, decided on 29.07.2011, wherein the appointment of Lambardar who was running a shop 6 KMs away from village was upheld.

4. Keeping in view the credentials of respondent No.4, who is graduate, honoured by President of India for his distinguished service in the Army and the fact that he is running a karyana shop in the village are the perfectly justified grounds for his appointment as Lambardar. Mere fact that the appellant is younger in age does not disentitle respondent No.4 from being appointed as Lambardar, keeping in view much better credentials than the present appellant.

5. The Collector has examined the merits of both the candidates and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner has wrongly interfered with the order passed by the Collector. Such orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have been rightly set aside by learned Single Bench.

6. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court which may warrant interference in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

7. Dismissed.

---------0.B.S.0------------