Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Collusive proclamation – Writ jurisdiction -- Merely because one of the applicants was the father of the petitioner collusion cannot be inferred -- Two other candidates had also applied and there is no evidence that either of them was closely related to the petitioner – Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, upset by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner – Writ allowed, impugned orders set quashed and appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2022

Rule 15 – Letters Patent Appeal -- Appointment of Lambardar -- No disqualification assigned to appointment of respondent No. 5 -- Appellant is more meritorious on all aspects including education, land as also the standing that itself would not be a ground for setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 5 when there is no illegality in the process of appointment.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.10.2022

Rule 15 – Letters Patent Appeal -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Hereditary claim – Comparative merit, apart from the other characteristics of a person, has been taken note of by the Collector while assessing the comparative status of the candidates while making an appointment -- Hereditary aspect, was not the sole consideration, appointed candidate had been helping his uncle in performing the duties of the Lambardar and, therefore, would be conversant with the procedure – All the revenue authorities found the appointment in accordance with law – Held, comparative merit cannot be assessed by the Court nor can the Court act as an appellate authority – Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.10.2022

Rule 14 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Appointment of Lambardar – Appeal – Necessary party -- Petitioner himself had withdrawn his candidature for being appointed as Lambardar before the Collector -- Once the petitioner had foregone his claim for appointment, he was not a necessary party for being impleaded in appeal filed by the other contestant.

(P&H HC) Decided on 15.05.2006