Civil Writ Petition No. 9100 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9100 of 2010 Date of Order: 12.07.2010 Charan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Co-operation) and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill,Advocate for the petitioner. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent no.4 as the Lambardar and prays that the orders dated 24.04.2007 and 05.02.2010, passed by the Collector, Kapurthala and the Financial Commissioner(Co-operation), Punjab, appointing and affirming the appointment of respondent no.4, should be set aside. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is younger in age, owns more land and has served the village as a Sarpanch. The mere fact that respondent no.4 is an ex-serviceman, would not negate the petitioner's tenure as a Sarpanch. It is argued that the Financial Commissioner has committed an error in holding that the petitioner's tenure as a Sarpanch would not add to his qualification. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. Civil Writ Petition No. 9100 of 2010 -2- The Collector has considered the merits of the candidates and appointed respondent no.4, primarily on the ground that he is an ex-serviceman. Rule 15(c) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules provides that services rendered to the State by a candidate, or his family are a relevant circumstance for appointing a Lambardar. The fact that respondent no.4 is an ex-serviceman, was rightly considered by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner, as sufficient to appoint respondent no.4, in preference to the petitioner. The service of the petitioner as an Ex. Sarpanch though an added qualification does not entitle him to claim precedence over respondent no.4 or to urge that the choice of the Collector as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, is illegal and void. No merit. Dismissed. July 12, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE