***

HARSH BUNGER J. –

1. Petitioner (Hira Singh) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby respondent No.4 (Amandeep Singh) was appointed as the Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. A further prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby his appeal bearing ROA No.48 of 2014 against the aforesaid order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-4) was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the previous Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo, namely Harnam Singh son of Roop Singh, expired on 22.06.1988 and upon approval of the District Collector, Tarn Taran, proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacant post of Lambardar (S.C.) of the aforesaid village. After due proclamation for the aforesaid post of Lambardar (S.C.), three applications were received, including the applications submitted by the present petitioner (Hira Singh) and respondent No.4 (Amandeep Singh). The character of the candidates was got verified from the local police, which was found to be in order. Lower Revenue Officers, i.e. Tehsildars and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti recommended the name of respondent No.4 (Amandeep Singh) for appointment to the post of Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo. Thereafter, the matter was put up before the District Collector, Tarn Taran, who afforded opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties.

3. As regards the petitioner (Hira Singh), it was observed by the District Collector, Tarn Taran that he was 39 years of age; a permanent resident of Village Marri Kambo; belonged to the Scheduled Castes Community; and having educational qualification upto 10th Standard. It was also observed that he could read and write Punjabi properly.

3.1. On the other hand, respondent No.4 (Amandeep Singh) was 24 years of age, a permanent resident of Village Marri Kambo and belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community. He was also equally qualified as the petitioner, being matriculate, and was found to be capable of reading and writing Punjabi properly.

4. The learned Collector, Tarn Taran vide order dated 11.01.2012 (Annexure P-1) appointed the present petitioner (Hira Singh) as Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo.

5. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 11.01.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned District Collector, Tarn Taran, Amandeep Singh (respondent No.4) filed an appeal (Revenue Appeal No.51 of 2012) before the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar, which was allowed vide order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) and Amandeep Singh was appointed as the Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo. Relevant extract of order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) would read as under:-

“6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record received in the case & papers brought on the file. The appellant is 24 years old and 10th pass whereas the respondent is 39 years old and also 10th pass. However, the respondent is younger in age and as per the settled law where other things are equal the candidate younger in the age should be preferred. Moreover, the appellant has produced a copy of FIR No.64 U/s 326/324/34 dated 4.9.2004 registered against the respondent. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is silent on the fact that why he disagreed with the recommendation of the lower revenue officers who recommended the name of the appellant Amandeep Singh. In view of this fact I set aside the order of the Collector dated 11.1.2012 and appoint appellant Amandeep Singh s/o Bakshish Singh as lambardar of the Village Marri Kambo, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.”

6. The aforesaid order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) was challenged by the present petitioner (Hira Singh) before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab by filing an appeal (ROA No.48 of 2014), which was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure P-5).

7. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner (Hira Singh) filed the instant writ petition before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Commissioner as well as the learned Financial Commissioner have erred in appointing respondent No.4 (Amandeep Singh) as the Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo by ignoring the relevant merits of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Commissioner has wrongly non-suited the petitioner by observing that there was an FIR registered against him in the year 2004, whereas the petitioner had already been acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 20.10.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti. It is further submitted that the said acquittal of petitioner was prior to the initiation of proceedings for filling up the vacant post of Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo, and therefore, the said factor should not have been made a ground for non-suiting the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a mature man, sufficiently educated and the learned Collector, Tarn Taran had appointed him as the Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo. It is next submitted that the choice of Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar is not to be interfered lightly unless there is any illegality or perversity in the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the learned Commissioner should not have passed the order, appointing Amandeep Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar, rather he should have remanded the case to the Collector, for fresh decision.

8.1 With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar and impugned order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab be set aside; and the petitioner be appointed as Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has contested the claim of petitioner by submitting that the Collector, Tarn Taran had wrongly appointed the petitioner (Hari Singh) as Lambardar (S.C.), that too without considering the fact that the candidature of Amandeep Singh (respondent No.4) was recommended by the Lower Revenue Officers, i.e. Tehsildars and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti, which was required to be considered by the Collector. It is submitted that respondent No.4 is younger than the petitioner and as per the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, age of the candidate is a relevant factor to be considered while making appointment to the post of Lambardar. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 is also sufficiently educated inasmuch as that he is equally qualified as that of the petitioner, i.e. matriculate. It is next submitted that the Commissioner has passed order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3), appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar (S.C.), after considering the relative merits and demerits of petitioner and respondent No.4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that the petitioner may have been acquitted in case FIR No.64 dated 04.09.2004, registered under Sections 326/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas respondent No.4 is a person with clean antecedents, accordingly order passed by the Commissioner appointing Amandeep Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar (S.C.), and as upheld by the Financial Commissioner, is not required to be interfered with. It is also submitted that respondent No.4, after being appointed as Lambardar (S.C.), has been performing his duties with due diligence, till date.

9.1 With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.4 prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

11. In the present case, it is not disputed that Lower Revenue Officers, i.e. Tehsildars as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti, recommended the name of respondent No.4 for being appointed as Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo. It is also not disputed that at the time of passing of order dated 11.01.2012 (Annexure P-1) by the Collector, Tarn Taran, the petitioner was about 39 years of age and respondent No.4 was 24 years old. So far as the educational qualification of the petitioner and respondent No.4 is concerned, both are stated to have studied up to 10th Standard. Both of them are the permanent residents of Village Marri Kambo and belong to the Scheduled Castes Community. It is also not disputed that petitioner was involved in the aforesaid case FIR No.64 dated 04.09.2004 registered under Sections 326/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, although he was subsequently acquitted vide judgment dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti.

12. From comparison of the relative merits and demerits of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4, it is borne out that Amandeep Singh (respondent No.4) had an edge over the petitioner inasmuch as that he is younger in age than the petitioner. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram”, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 757 has held that age of a candidate is a relevant factor. Furthermore, the candidature of respondent No.4 was recommended by the Lower Revenue Officers. In “Atma Singh Vs. the Financial Commissioner, Revenue”, Punjab, 2016 (1) L.A.R. 592 = (2016) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10214, it was held by this Court that although, recommendations of Lower Revenue Officers are not binding on the Collector, however, due consideration is to be accorded to such recommendations as they are in a position to assess the suitability of a candidate. In “Hakam Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab” 2016 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 335, it was again held by this Court that the recommendations made by the Lower Revenue Authorities may not be binding on the District Collector yet the same would have some persuasive value. Still further, respondent No.4 is sufficiently educated and has clean antecedents.

13. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Commissioner should have not passed the order appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, it is observed that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Tak Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana” 1998 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 90 has held as under:-

“… the other contention of the learned counsel that the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to select a village Headman-cum-Lambardar again cannot be accepted. The Appellate or the Revisional Authority has a right to pass the same order that can be passed by the Collector. Thus the selection of village Headman-cum-Lambardar by the Financial Commissioner cannot be set aside on that ground …”

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar, as affirmed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab vide order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure P-5) appointing respondent No.4 as the Lambardar (S.C.) of Village Marri Kambo, is hereby upheld.

15. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

Petition dismissed.

********