IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of a Lambardar is primarily the prerogative of the Collector, whose decision should only be overturned in cases of gross irregularity or error.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1, whereby, revision filed by respondent No.4 has been allowed and respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar of village Pahlewal illegally, arbitrarily and against the facts of the case and upholding the order dated 02.01.2017 (Annexure P2) passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on account of death of Harbhajan Singh, earlier Lambardar of village Pahewal, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, post of Lambardar fell vacant and thus, process for the appointment of new Lambardar was initiated. Mushtri Munadi was conducted in the village for inviting applications from the interested and eligible candidates. In pursuance to the same, three application from Naresh Kumar (petitioner), Anil Kumar and Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) were received. Their character verifications were got conducted from the Police. SDM Garhshankar recommended the name of the petitioner for the appointment of Lambardar. On appreciation of their inter-se merits, Naresh Kumar (petitioner) was found to be 43 years of age and 10th pass by qualification. Besides this, he owned 3 Kanals of land and he was found to be ex-serviceman having served in Army for 17 years and thus, was a pensioner. He was also found to be nephew of the deceased Lambardar. On the other hand, Surjit Singh (respondent No.4) was found to be 68 years of age and 10th pass. Besides this he owned 4 Kanals of land and he was also found to be ex-serviceman having served in Army for 26 years and retired as Subedar. Learned Collector on evaluation of the inter-se merits and demerits of the candidates in fray, finding the petitioner to be more meritorious appointed him as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Learned Divisional Commissioner after hearing both the sides found no perversity in the order passed by the Collector and thus, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 02.01.2017 (Annexure P-2). Again aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 filed a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the learned Financial Commissioner. However, learned Financial Commissioner after hearing both the sides set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner by appointing respondent No.4 as Lambdardar of the village vide impugned order dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure P-3). Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that from comparison of the inter-se merits of all three candidates in fray, it is apparent that petitioner was most meritorious and suitable candidate for the appointment of Lambardar. He submits that even SDM also recommended the name of petitioner to the Collector for the appointment. It is submitted that agreeing with the same, learned Collector on evaluation of the inter-se merits of all the candidates, found the petitioner to be more meritorious and thus, appointed him as Lambardar of the village, which was duly upheld by the Commissioner in the appeal filed by respondent No.4. He submits that learned Financial Commissioner has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record, statutory provisions of the Act and the law settled and thus, has illegally not only set aside both the well reasoned orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner but also appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner was about 25 years younger in age than respondent No.4 and as per the law settled, the candidate younger in age should be given pr