The appointment of a Lambardar by the Collector should not be interfered with unless it is proven to be perverse or illegal.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing the order dated 13.07.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1 vide which revision petition filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed; order dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 vide which appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 29.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 vide which the respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar of village Lidhran illegally and wrongly in contradiction to the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 and the relevant rules. Further prayer has been made for directing the official respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar of village Lidhran and for staying the operation of impugned orders dated 13.07.2017 passed by respondent No.1; order dated 29.05.2014 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 29.02.2012 passed by respondent No.3 during the pendency of the present petition.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on the death of earlier Lambardar, namely, Harbhajan Singh on 01.09.2010, the post of Lambardar in village Lidhran, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur fell vacant. Thus, the process for appointment of new Lambardar was initiated and the mustri munadi was conducted in the village for inviting the applications from interested and eligible candidates. In pursuance to the same, six applications were received from the candidates including the petitioner and respondent No.4. Their character antecedents were got verified by the Police Department. On appreciation of the applications filed, Amaritpal Singh i.e. the petitioner was found to be 31 years of age and matriculate by qualification. Besides this, he owned 07 kanals and 02 marlas of land. He was son of the deceased Lambardar as well. On the other hand, Kashmir Singh i.e. respondent No.4 was found to be 43 years of age and 7th class pass by qualification. Besides this, he owned 21 kanals and 14 marlas of land. He was the member of the Village Agricultural Cooperative Society as well. On the comparison of inter se merits of the candidates, Tehsildar Hoshiarpur recommended the name of respondent No.4 i.e. Kashmir Singh to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hoshiarpur also agreed with the same and recommended the name of respondent No.4 to the Collector for his appointment as Lambardar of the village. On the evaluation of over all merits and demerits of the candidates in the fray, the District Collector, Hoshiarpur appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village vide his order dated 29.02.2012. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and other candidate, namely, Mehnga Singh filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The learned Commissioner heard both the sides again and appreciated the merits and demerits of the petitioner and respondent No.4. However, finding no perversity in the order passed by the District Collector, the learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 29.05.2014. Still being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab i.e. respondent No.1. However, the learned Financial Commissioner after hearing both the sides, found no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner and dismissed the same vide his order dated 13.07.2017. Thus, the appointment of respondent No.4 was upheld by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that on the comparison of inter se merits, it is evident that the petitioner was younger in age and more qualified than respondent No.4. He submits that the petitioner is the son of deceased Lambardar as well and thus, he has the hereditary claim as well. He has submitted that in view of the parameters laid down in Rule 15 of the Punjab