Age cannot be the sole criterion for appointment; holistic assessment of candidate qualifications and circumstances is necessary.

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-7126-LPA-2025 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal.

Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA-2828-2025

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 25.04.2025 passed in CWP-11303-2025 titled as Kulveer Chand vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and others, by the learned Single Judge by which, the order dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the authorities appointing respondent No.4 as a Lambardar of the village concerned, has been upheld.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the claim of the appellant has been rejected by the authorities concerned solely on the ground that he is younger in age than the other candidate i.e. respondent No.4, which is not permissible as per the settled principle of law according to which the candidate younger in age is to be appointed to the said post in preference to an order candidate. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that though, both the candidates were interviewed for appointment to the post in question by the authorities concerned, the Collector choose to accept the recommendation of respondent No.4 made by the ‘Tehsildar’ concerned in preference to recommendation of appellant made by the SDM concerned which is arbitrary and illegal and all the authorities, including the Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, the Financial Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge erred in continuance with the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

4. The argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the decision in LPA-2688-2024 titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Haryana and others , decided on 04.11.2024, which judgment places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others , 2009 (3) SCC 439, the candidate younger in age has to be appointed.

5. In this regard, it may be submitted that it is not a set standard of procedure while appointment to the said post that in each and every case the candidate who is younger in age is to be preferred over the older one, rather facts of each case has to be seen in order to arrive at a conclusion that who is a better candidate. In case said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is to be accepted, then the candidate who is older in age, would suffer each and every time at the hands of a candidate who is younger in age, which cannot not be the interpretation of the law, as is being interpreted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Rather, the same is to be done by taking into consideration all the relevant aspects which include but are not limited to qualification experience and antecedents of the candidate.

6. Further, it may be noticed that the choice as to who will be appointed to the post of Lambardar rests upon the revenue authority, being better suited to appoint a person to the said post and the decision of said authorities attain finality unless and until, such selection is shown to be malafide in any manner, which may be taken as a ground to challenge the appointment.

7. In the present case, before the appointment of any candidate at the post of Lambardar by the Collector, the Tehsildar recommended the name of respondent No.4 and the SDM recommended the name of the appellant. After adjudging both the candidates upon the meri