The appointment of Lambardar is primarily at the discretion of the Collector, and the subjective satisfaction of the Collector should not be interfered with without evidence of gross irregularity or perverse reasoning.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the impugned order dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by Financial Commissioner, order dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Rupnagar and order dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Collector, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby respondent No.4 has been illegally and wrongly appointed as Lambardar.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on the demise of Khushwinder Singh, earlier Lambardar of village Nawanshahr, SDM, Nawanshahr vide his letter dated 01.11.2021, started process for the appointment of new Lambardar. Mushtri Munadi was conducted in the village for inviting the applications from the interested candidates. Resultantly, four applications were received from the following candidates:-

1. Smt. Baljinder Mangat wife of Harjit Singh Mangat (petitioner)

2. Sh. Vipan Kumar son of Jang Bahadur (respondent No.4)

3. Sh. Charanjit Singh Rattan son of Chet Ram

4. Sh. Ketan Chintu son of Ram Gopal

3. Character verification of all the candidates were got conducted. Their inter-se merits were analysed. On the appreciation of the candidature of the petitioner, namely, Baljinder Mangat, she was found to be 59 years of age and MA by qualification. She was found not associating with any political party and was active as social worker. Respondent No.4 was found to be 44 years and 10+2 pass. He was not associating with any political party and his name was recommended by the Tehsildar, Nawanshahr and SDM, Nawanshahr. On comparison of inter-se merits of all the candidates, the learned Collector found respondent No.4 to be more meritorious and thus, appointed him as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar. However, the learned Commissioner after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same vide order dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure P-2). Again aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the learned Financial Commissioner. Learned Financial Commissioner heard both the sides and re-appreciated the case, however, finding no merit in the revision filed, dismissed the same vide order dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure P-3). Thus, the order passed by the Collector has been upheld by both the Appellate and revisional authorities. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has verhemently contended that as is evident, the petitioner is postgraduate as she is MA by qualification, whereas, respondent No.4 was just 10+2 pass. He has submitted that the petitioner remained active social worker as she conducted plays showing menace of the dowry and drugs. He submits that BDPO, Banga awarded her the certification for her social service rendered in the village in the year 1983. He submits that the petitioner was more qualified and experienced as compared to respondent No.4, but the learned Collector failed to appreciate the same and thus, illegally appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. He submits that the Appellate and revisional authorities again failed to appreciate the merits of the petitioner and thus, drawn wrong conclusion in upholding the order passed by the Collector. He has submitted that the order passed by the Collector being perverse should have been set aside by the Appellate and revisional authorities, but they miserably failed to appreciate the law settled and thus, the impug