Education alone does not qualify or disqualify candidates for appointment as lambardar; land holdings are not the sole consideration for suitability.

JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J.

1. Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the impugned orders dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Collector Bathinda, District Bathinda; 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, District Faridkot as well as order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab.

2. Briefly, upon demise of Sh. Hargobind Singh, previous lambardar of Village Rajgarh Kubbey, District Bathinda; proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacancy wherein, the petitioner-Amritpal Singh and respondent No.5-Gursharan Singh were also the candidates.

2.1 Learned Tehsildar Maur, recommended the candidature of one Lakhwinder Singh for appointment to the afore-said vacancy however, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maur recommended the candidature of respondent No.5-Gursharan Singh for the post of lambardar and placed the matter before the learned Collector.

2.2 The learned Collector, Bathinda upon considering the relative merits and de-merits of the candidates, found respondent No.5 as a suitable candidate and accordingly, appointed him as the lambardar vide order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-1).

2.3 Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the Collector’s order before the learned Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot which was dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-2).

2.4 Still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision petition (ROR-507-2024) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-3). 2.5 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court for the relief/s, as noticed here-in-above.

3. Heard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised two grounds; firstly that the petitioner is more educated than respondent No.5 and secondly; that the petitioner has more land holdings than respondent No.5. On the basis of the afore-said assertions, it is contended that the better merits of the petitioner have been ignored by the revenue authorities; therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the petitioner be appointed as the lambardar.

5. I have considered both the afore-said contentions. As regards the plea that the petitioner is more educated than respondent No.5, it is observed that no doubt, the petitioner is a graduate and respondent No.5 has studied upto 10+2; however, respondent No.5 is not ineligible on that account for appointment as lambardar.

5.1 As regards the plea of the petitioner that he has more land holdings than respondent No.5, suffice it to say that holding of land is taken into consideration only for the purpose of security towards government revenue collected by the Lambardar. Respondent no.5 has about 09 Kanals-14 Marlas of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar. Moreover, in case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, 2017 (1) RCR (Civil) 233, this Court has observed that land revenue stood abolished in both the State of Punjab and Haryana, long back, thus owning land by the candidates for the post of Lambardar would not be of much significance any further.

6. In the present case, all the revenue authorities below have concurrently held in favour of respondent No.5 by finding him suitable for the post of lambardar. It is well settled that in the matter of appointment of