The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the age and qualifications of candidates, as well as the relevance of criminal antecedents in the appointment process, and the application of the settled legal principle that the younger candidate should be preferred if the inter se merits of the candidates are otherwise at par.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Moga in File No.52-Lambardari; order dated 29.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur in Appeal No.Lamb-8 of 2012 and order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab in ROR No.258 of 2013.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of Arjan Singh son of Chanan Singh, resident of Village Dagru, Tehsil and District Moga on 21.03.2002, sanction for the post of appointment of Lambardar was accorded on 29.12.2010. The process of appointment was initiated and mustri munadi was carried out. In pursuant to the same, various candidates applied for appointment. The scrutiny of the candidature of all the candidates was conducted and it was found that candidate Jagraj Singh, respondent No.5 was 40 years of age and he had deposited the defaulted amount of the cooperative society. An FIR No.94 dated 20.07.2005 under Sections 325, 323, 148, 149 of IPC was registered against him at Police Station Sadar Moga. However, in that case the compromise was arrived at between the parties. Candidate Harminder Singh i.e the petitioner was 30 years of age and he was 10+2 qualified. He could read and write Punjabi and English. On comparison of all the inter se merits, name of Harminder Singh i.e. the petitioner was recommended by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Moga for the appointment to the post of Lambardar. Learned District Collector however, on analysis of all the candidates in fray and the recommendation reports etc., found Jagraj Singh i.e. respondent No.5 as most suitable candidate and thus, appointed him as Lambardar vide his order dated 12.12.2011. This decision of the District Collector was challenged by the petitioner-Harminder Singh and respondent No.6-Harjit Singh by way of filing their independent appeals before the Commissioner, Ferozepur. Learned Commissioner on hearing the parties and perusing the record dismissed the same vide his order dated 29.05.2012 and thus, upheld the order of the Collector dated 12.12.2011. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab Chandigarh. However, learned Financial Commissioner finding no merit in the petition dismissed the same vide his order dated 19.01.2016 and thus, upheld the orders of the Collector and that of the Commissioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the merits of all the candidates in fray were specific enough and as the petitioner was 30 years of age and 10+2, so he was the youngest and more qualified than respondent No.5. He further submits that admittedly the FIR No.94 dated 20.07.2005 under Sections 325, 323, 148, 149 of IPC was registered against the respondent No.5. He submits that even if the same was finally resulted in the compromise, the candidature of the petitioner could not have been ignored as the petitioner had no criminal antecedents whatsoever. He submits that as per the settled proposition of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram, 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 757 said that the candidate who is younger in age should have been given the preference but the learned Collector failed to appreciate the same. He submits that the Appellate Authority also failed to appreciate that there was no discussion by Collector regarding the prosecution of the respondent in the FIR and thus, decision of the Collector was totally perverse which learned Commissioner failed to appreciate and thus, illegally declined the appeal filed by the petitioner. He submits that the revision was filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner but learned Financial Commissioner also fallen in error by not appreciating the fact and circumstances of the case and law settled and thus, illegally dismis