The prerogative of the District Collector in making the appointment of Lambardar and the relevance of age and land holdings in the selection process.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.09.2018 passed by respondent No.3 vide which respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar of Village Behbal Khurd, Tehsil Jaito, District Faridkot; impugned order dated 20.02.2019 passed by respondent No.2 vide which appeal of petitioner was rejected and impugned order dated 11.07.2022 passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the revision petition filed by petitioner.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on account of death of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh previous Lambardar of Village Behbul Khurd, the approval regarding preparing the file was initiated vide letter bearing No.3954 dated 29.09.2017. The applications were invited from the willing candidates. The applications were received in the office of the District Collector from various candidates including the petitioner and respondent No.4. The inter se merits of all the candidates who applied were evaluated and on appreciation of the same, learned Collector found respondent No.4 to be the most suitable candidate for the appointment and hence, he was appointed as Lambardar of the Village vide its order dated 28.09.2018.

3. The issue involved in the present petition is regarding the appointment of the Lambardar in Village Behbul Khurd. The Collector had appointed respondent No.4 namely, Kuldeep Singh son of Karnail Singh as Lambardar of the village after considering the merit of the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner who failed to succeed, challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 by way of filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner, Faridkot which was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2019 and thereafter, he filed the revision before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2022 and the order passed by the learned Collector was upheld by both the authorities i.e. the appellate and the revisional authorities by way of passing the impugned orders and hence, the petitioner is before this Court impugning the orders passed by the competent authorities.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that learned Collector and thereafter, learned Appellate and Revisional Authority have miserably failed in appreciating the merits of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is resident of Village Behbul Khurd and has studied upto matric standard and he is nephew of deceased Lambardar Mukhtiar Singh and thus, has the experience and suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar. He has submitted that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he has less holdings of the land than that of respondent No.4 which is no criteria for the appointment to the post of Lambardar. He has further submitted that respondent No.4 had illegally encroached upon the Shamlat Land and thus, did not have an impeccable record for his consideration to the post of Lambardar over and above the petitioner. He submits that name of the petitioner was recommended by the villagers and respondent No.4 was not recommended by them. He has further submitted that the petitioner is matriculate whereas, respondent No.4 is 8th passed. He further submits that the petitioner is 27 years of age whereas, respondent No.4 is 32 years of age and thus, was younger. He has submitted that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the same and thus, have drawn a wrong conclusion in appointing respondent No.4 to the post of Lambardar which is totally against the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as law settled by this Court. He has submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the authorities below being unsustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be declared to be appointed as Lambardar of the village Behbal Khurd.

5. This Court has heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is apparent fr