JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J.

1. Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Collector, Rupnagar; order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Rupnagar and order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab.

2. Briefly, upon demise of Sh. Hakam Singh, previous Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Brahman Majra, Teshil and District Rupnagar, proceedings for filling up the said vacancy were initiated, wherein petitioner – Manjit Singh and respondent No.4 - Inderjit Singh were also the candidates.

2.1 The learned Tehsildar, Rupnagar, as well as the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rupnagar, recommended the candidature of respondent No.4 for appointment to the post of Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Brahman Majra; and forwarded the matter to the learned Collector, Rupnagar.

2.2 The learned Collector, Rupnagar, upon considering the relative merits and demerits of all the candidates, found respondent No.4 – Inderjit Singh to be the most suitable candidate and, accordingly, appointed him as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Brahman Majra, vide order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-8).

2.3 Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-8), petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Rupnagar, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-9).

2.4 Still dissatisfied, petitioner preferred a revision petition (ROR No.621 of 2025) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-10).

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

4. Heard.

5. In the instant case, respondent No.4 has consistently been found to be more meritorious than the petitioner and was, accordingly, appointed as Lambardar of Village Brahman Majra.

6. The learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, while upholding the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar, returned the following findings vide order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-10):-

“6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties, gone through their submissions and have also perused the orders of the courts below. The District Collector, who is appointing authority as per law, passed the order of appointment of respondent no.3 as lambardar on 09.09.2024. The Collector took into account all relevant facts such as age, residence, educational qualifications, character and social service of the candidates. It was found that respondent No.3 is a permanent resident of village Brahman Majra, has a Bachelor of Arts degree, has undergone computer training and actively participates in welfare activities of the village. These factors weigh in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner was found not to be a resident of the village for several years as per the voter list and reports from village officials. This fact goes against the petitioner arguments for appointment to the post. The person who is not available in the village would frustrate the purpose of the post and cause harassment to the general public was rightly considered by the Collector. The post of lambardar requires the person to be available at all times to assist the revenue authorities and the residents. If the person appointed is not available in the village, the very purpose of lambardari would be defeated and the public would suffer. This reasoning supports the appointment of respondent No.3 who resides permanently in the village. The petitioner arguments based on hereditary claim were considered. As per law, hereditary right cannot be claimed as a matter of right but will come into play only when the merits of candidates are almost same and are rather identical. Additional weightage would then be given to the candidates with hered