***

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) –

1. Prayer in the instant civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar (in short 'Divisional Commissioner') and order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab (in short 'Financial Commissioner').

2. Briefly, on demise of Shri Bhajan Singh, previous Lambardar of village Mahen, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, proceedings were initiated for filling up the aforesaid vacancy, wherein petitioner (Kuldeep Kaur) and respondent No. 4 (Balwant Singh) were also the candidates.

2.1 It transpires that learned Collector, vide its order dated 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-2), appointed petitioner as Lambardar, however, on an appeal being filed by respondent No. 4 (Balwant Singh), learned Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), set aside learned Collector's order dated 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) and remanded the matter back to learned Collector for deciding the case afresh after hearing all concerned parties.

2.2 Still aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal (ROA-21-2025) before learned Financial Commissioner, however, same has also been dismissed, vide order dated 10.08.2025 (Annexure P-5).

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

4. Heard.

5. Apparently, petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by learned Collector, vide order dated 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) by observing as under :-

“ During the hearing, it was found that the age of the candidate Sh. Balwant Singh was 39 years at the time of filing the application and is now 48 years. He is 10+2 passed and ITI. But he runs a hardware shop far from the village. He has also been fined by the Hon'ble Civil Court, whose appeal is still pending. Apart from this, there are also allegations of his association with a political party. Thus, this candidate is not eligible for Nambardari. The age of the candidate Sh. Madan Lal was 31 years at the time of filing the application and is now 40 years. He is a matriculation pass, but he is working as a Pathi at Gurdwara Sri Kesgarh Sahib, Sri Anandpur Sahib. Thus, both these candidates work outside the village and cannot be easily available for the work of the villagers for the Nambardar. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to appoint any of these candidates as Nambardar. Although the age of the candidate Smt. Kuldeep Kaur was 55 years at the time of filing the application and is now 64 years. But she looks healthy in terms of health. She is also fit, her counsel's arguments are that being older or less educated is not a disqualification for Nambardar, along with age and education, other merits are also to be seen. Candidate Smt. Kuldeep Kaur does domestic work, is present in the village all the time. In relation, she is the wife of the deceased Nambardar, she has been a member of the Panchayat for 10 years. She is a member of the Lady Wing. She does not have any connection with any political party. Two candidates have withdrawn their applications in her favour. Thus, the candidate Smt. Kuldeep Kaur is a more qualified candidate than the other two candidates in merit. She will be easily available for the daily work of the villagers. In the light of these facts, considering the candidate Smt. Kuldeep Kaur wife of late Sh. Bhajan Singh as a qualified and intelligent candidate, she is hereby appointed as new Scheduled Caste Nambardar of Village Mahain, HB No. 353, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. After compliance case file be consigned to record.”

5.1 A perusal of above extracted order passed by learned Collector would show that relevant factors like age, educational qualification etc. are required to be seen in terms of Rule 15 read with Rule 17 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules, which have not been taken into consideration. On an appeal being filed by respondent No. 4, learned Divisional Commissioner has set aside learned Collector's order dated 17.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) and remanded the matter back to learned Collector for deciding the same afresh after hearing all concerned parties. Learned Divisional Commissioner's order has been further affirmed by learned Financial Commissioner, by observing as under :-

“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 Collector was earlier directed by the Commissioner on 10.08.2018 to consider if the respondent was running a hardware and paint shop outside the village and whether he and his family were involved in political activities. The Collector passed the order dated 17.07.2024 appointing the appellant but failed to properly compare the merits of both candidates or give adequate reasons for rejecting the respondent. The respondent is a permanent resident of the village aged 48 years with educational qualifications up to twelfth class and an ITI certificate. Thename of the respondent was recommended by the Tehsildar, Sri Anandpur Sahib and the SDM, Sri Anandpur Sahib for the post. The appellant is more than 65 years old and has only passed seventh class. The Collector did not sufficiently consider these facts while appointing the appellant. The educational qualification is an important factor as per law in the present era. Most of the duties attached to the post of lambardar require written communication and record keeping which makes it necessary that the person appointed has better education. Therefore, the more educated candidate is more suitable for the post. The Collector did not adequately weigh this aspect. In regard to relevance of age the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Mahavir Singh versus Khiali Ram and others 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 757 2009 (3) SCC (Civil) 439 has held that age of a candidate is a relevant factor in appointments to the post of lambardar in the State of Punjab. Further the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudharshan Kumar versus Financial Commissioner Haryana 2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 347 observed that a younger person has more energy and potentiality to assist villagers compared to older persons. The Hon'ble High Court held that revenue authorities preferring an older person over a younger candidate committed error as per law. In the present case the respondent is younger and this factor weighs in his favour. The Collector placed reliance on the fact that the respondent runs a shop outside the village. However, the residence of the respondent in the village is not disputed. Mere running of a shop outside the village cannot be a ground to reject the respondent when he remains available in the village. No document was produced to show that this affected his availability for villagers. The Collector referred to a Show Cause Notice issued by the BDPO to the respondent but did not record any adverse finding or penalty that would disqualify the respondent. The Collector also relied on general allegations of political involvement without any concrete document or proof. Recommendations from the Tehsildar and SDM in favour of the respondent were not properly considered. The order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner rightly found that the Collector's order dated 17.07.2024 lacked proper comparative assessment and failed to justify rejection of the respondent who has better age educational qualification and official recommendations. The Collector also did not clarify if the directions of 10.08.2018 were fully complied with. The discretion of the Collector in appointing a lambardar must be exercised as per law considering age educational qualification residence social standing and official recommendations. No ground is made out to interfere with the order dated 19.05.2025.

7. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I dismiss the present appeal. The order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Rupngar Division, Rupnagar is hereby upheld. Copy of this order be communicated to the courts below. File be consigned to the record room.”

6. I have gone through the order passed by learned Collector as well as orders passed by learned Divisional Commissioner and learned Financial Commissioner.

6.1 A perusal of learned Collector's order leaves no manner of doubt that the relevant factors for appointing a Lambardar have not been kept in view by learned Collector while passing the order. Learned Divisional Commissioner as well as learned Financial Commissioner have rightly appreciated the matter and set aside learned Collector's order and further remanded the matter back to learned Collector for deciding the matter afresh after taking into consideration the relevant factors for appointment of Lambardar.

7. In view of the above, I find no compelling reasons to interfere in the orders passed by learned Divisional Commissioner and learned Financial Commissioner.

8. Resultantly, the instant civil writ petition fails and same is accordingly dismissed.

9. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand closed.

Petition dismissed.

********