The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the appointing authority should not be disturbed without a clear illegality, and the comparison of merits is a valid basis for such decisions.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 11.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner, whereby a well reasoned order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2-Commissioner, has been wrongly set aside on a perverse ground that petition has been held guilty for theft of electricity, although the documents on record clearly prove that the FIR was cancelled in view of the compounding fee deposited by the petitioner, as reflected in orders dated 20.05.2017 (Annexure P-5) and 08.07.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, Patiala.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on account of death of Amar Singh, Lambardar of village Khairpur Jattan Tehsil Rajpura, post of Lambardar fell vacant and thus, process for the appointment of new Lambardar was initiated. Resultantly, proclamation was carried out and in response to the same, three candidates, namely, Swaran Singh (petitioner), Gurbakhshish Singh and Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) applied for the post. During the pendency of the proceedings, Gurbakhshish Singh withdrew his application in favour of Swaran Singh (petitioner), thus, only two candidates i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.4 remained in the fray. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura recommended the name of Avtar Singh for the post of Lambardar and submitted his report to the Collector. On the appreciation of the merits of the candidates, petitioner-Swaran Singh was found to be 34 years of age and 10+2 by qualification and owner of 20 bigha 5 biswa of land, whereas, Avtar Singh was found to be 45 years of age, 10+2 pass and owner of 16 bigha of land. On the comparison of the inter-se merits and the overall facts and circumstances, the Collector appointed Avtar Singh i.e. respondent No.4 to be the Lambardar of the Village vide his order dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar. The learned Commissioner on hearing both the sides accepted the appeal filed and thus, set aside the order of the learned Collector and appointed Swaran Singh, i.e. the petitioner to be the Lambardar of the Village vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved by the view taken by the learned Commissioner, respondent No.4-Avtar Singh filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before the learned Financial Commissioner, who after hearing both the sides, set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and thus, accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.4. As a result the order passed by the learned Collector in appointing respondent No.4 Avtar Singh was upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated 11.11.2021(Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in pursuance to the Mushtari Munadi conducted in the village, the petitioner applied for the post of Lambardar. He submits that the petitioner was 34 years of age, 10+2 pass and owned 20 bigha 5 biswa of land in the village. He submits that the petitioner was nephew of deceased Lambardar, namely, Amar Singh and thus, he also served as Sarbrah Lambardar of the village from 27.09.2011 to 25.06.2015. He submits that name of the petitioner was recommended by 281 persons including the ex-Sarpanch and Panchs etc. He submits that the petitioner is 13 years younger in age than respondent No.4. It is submitted that the petitioner is much more meritorious on the basis of parameters laid down in Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, but the learned Collector miserably failed to appreciate the same and thus, illegally appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the Village. He submits that though the petitioner faced prosecution in FIR No.256 dated 20.06.2014, under