Age is a relevant factor for the appointment of Lambardar, and the decision should not be interfered with in a casual manner.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.1 i.e. the Financial Commissioner and order dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of Gurdeep Singh Sandhu, Lambardar of the village Mohkamgarh/17, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, post of Lambardar fell vacant and hence, proceedings for appointment of new Lambardar were initiated. Mushtari Munadi was conducted in the village regarding appointment of general Lambardar. He has submitted that in pursuance to the same, six applications were received and their character verification was got done from the SHO Police Station Tanda. He has submitted that personal details of the candidates are as under:-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that analysis of the inter-se merits was conducted and Naib Tehsildar, Tanda recommended the name of petitioner, namely, Manjit Singh for the appointment of Lambardar. He has submitted that SDM, Dasuya agreed with the report of Naib Tehsildar, recommended the name of petitioner for appointment of Lambardar and forwarded his report dated 20.11.2020 (Annexure P-5) to the District Collector. He submits that on complete analysis of the record of the candidates, the learned Collector found Manjit Singh petitioner to be the most suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar and thus, appointed him as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-6). He has submitted that appointment of the petitioner was assailed by respondent No.4 by way of filing appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar, who without appreciating the inter-se merits and the law settled, set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner for the post of Lambardar vide impugned order dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure P-9). He has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is totally cryptic and has been passed without assigning any reasons. He has submitted that the petitioner assailed the order dated 02.11.2022 by way of filing revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner, however, the learned Financial Commissioner as well passed a cryptic order and thus declined the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P-11). It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is 60 years of age; matriculate; permanent resident of the village and owns sufficient land as well. He submits that besides this he is a Panch of the Gram Panchayat of the village and bears a good moral character. It is submitted that name of the petitioner was recommended by the subordinate revenue authorities on the examination of merits of all the candidates, who applied for the post of Lambardar. He has submitted that as per la