JUDGMENT : 

HARSH BUNGER J. 

Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab.

2. Briefly, the learned Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide its memo dated 29.05.2012, approved creation of a new post of S.C. Lambardar in village Gagowal, District Mansa; accordingly, proceedings were initiated for filling up the said vacancy, wherein petitioner (Ram Singh) and respondent No.4 (Sukchain Singh) were also the candidates.

2.1 It appears that the learned Collector, Mansa vide order dated 20.05.2013 (Annexure P-5) appointed petitioner-Ram Singh as Lambardar (SC) of village Gagowal.

3. Feeling aggrieved against the learned Collector’s order, respondent No.4 (Sukhchain Singh) preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2015 (Annexure P-6).

4. Still dissatisfied, respondent No.4 (Sukhchain Singh) preferred a revision petition (ROR No.14 of 2016) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, which came to be partly allowed vide order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-7), whereby, the order passed by the learned Commissioner was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned Collector for deciding the matter afresh after considering the relative merits and demerits of the petitioner and respondent No.4.

5. In the aforementioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court for seeking relief(s) as noticed hereinabove.

6. Heard.

7. A perusal of the order sheets of this case reveals that while issuing notice of motion in this matter, the operation of the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner had been stayed. It is further borne out from the order sheets that, respondent No.4 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 10.12.2025; therefore the petitioner is only person left in the fray.

8. Here, it would be apposite to refer to the relative merits of the petitioner, which is summed up as under:-

9. A perusal of the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner would show that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had taken the following stand on behalf of the petitioner (as he was a respondent before the learned Financial Commissioner):

“...So far as allegations of the petitioner that respondent is a Driver and illiterate, counsel has denied the same and has stated that these are without any evidence on record; and the respondent remains in the village, doing labour job and he has also studied up to 3rd standard...”

9.1 A perusal of the above-extracted stand on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Financial Commissioner would show that the petitioner has denied that he is a driver and illiterate by stating that, the petitioner is doing labour job and studied up to 3rd standard.

10. In my considered view, even if the aforesaid stand on behalf of the petitioner is considered, it leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner is doing labour job for his livelihood and it may not be possible for him to take out time for discharging the duties of the Lambardar.

10.1 That apart, the petitioner claims to have studied up to 3^rd standard, which in my considered view, is virtually illiterate. Although, in Punjab Land Revenue Rules, no minimum qualification is prescribed; however considering the nature of duties to be performed by the Lambardar, it would be desirable to appoint a candidate, who is literate with basic understanding of languages (Punjabi, Hindi and English), so that he can understand the nature and contents of the documents, which may be presented before him, during the course of discharging the duties of Lambardar.

10.2 That apart, presently the petitioner is about 60 years of age and it is well-established by now, that age is a relevant consideration in the matter of