RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.

Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 3.11.2015 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, (Annexure P-4), whereby orders of Commissioner as well as District Collector, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar were upheld, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was a better candidate than respondent No.4, but the respondent authorities have failed to appreciate this material aspect of the matter, while passing their respective impugned orders. Other side unnecessarily raised the issue of alleged involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case, wherein petitioner never faced any criminal trial and all the accused therein had already been acquitted. Petitioner was working as Deed-Writer and it was not difficult for him to be available for the villagers, but the District Collector drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner, while adopting an illegal approach in this regard. He prays for setting aside the impugned orders by allowing the present writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that since all the three revenue authorities have recorded their concurrent findings of fact, which have been found duly supported by sound reasons, the impugned orders deserve to be upheld. The writ petition, having been found without any merit, is liable to be dismissed, for the following more than one reasons.

A bare combined reading of all the three impugned orders would show that the respondent authorities have examined, discussed and appreciated each and every aspect of the matter, before recording their cogent findings, which have been duly supported by sound reasons. It is a matter of record that candidature of respondent No.4 was recommended by Tehsildar as well as SDM Dharamkot, for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Although the recommendations made by lower revenue authorities may not be binding on the District Collector at the time of appointment of Lambardar, yet the same would have some persuasive value.

Availability of Lambardar to the residents of the village is one of the relevant considerations for appointing a Lambardar. The District Collector has rightly observed that it would be difficult for the petitioner to remain available to the residents of the village, as he was doing the work of Document writer. On the other hand, respondent No.4 would be available to the residents of the village. In addition to that, he was found having working experience to his credit. The District Collector has rightly not taken into consideration the factum of alleged involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case. However, since respondent No.4 was found having clear edge over the petitioner, he was rightly appointed by the District Collector vide his order dated 29.5.2012 (Annexure P-1).

In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur reconsidered the comparative merits of both the candidates, but he did not find any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the District Collector and the appeal of petitioner was rightly dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.5.2013 (Annexure P- 2). The matter was again considered by the Financial Commissioner in the revision petition filed by the petitioner but since the orders passed by the District Collector as well as the Commissioner were found having been passed strictly in accordance with law, the same were rightly upheld, while passing the order dated 3.11.2015 (Annexure P-4).

The Financial Commissioner rightly referred the findings recorded by the Commissioner, before