IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 14699 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.8.2009 Balkar Singh …Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner and ors …Respondents Present: Mr GS Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr HS Gill, DAG Punjab. Ms Amandeep Soni, Advocate for respondent-3. S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 9.5.2008 (P10) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) Punjab whereby the order dated 28.3.2005 (P3) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar has been set aside and the order dated 10.3.2004 (P1) passed by the District Collector, Kapurthala upheld, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) Punjab. On the demise of Devi Ditta, the previous Lambardar of village Ballo Chak, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala, applications were invited for filling up the vacancy. Initially, three applications of Mohinder Singh (respondent-3), Amar Singh and Bachan Singh were received. However, fresh proclamation was ordered as Amar Singh and Bachan Singh withdrew their applications and only Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) was left in the 1 CWP 14699 of 2008 field. On fresh proclamation, Balkar Singh – petitioner and Sat Pal also applied for the post of Lambardar. The Tehsildar, Bholath, recommended the name of Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) for the post. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade (SDM) Bholath recommended the name of Satpal. All the three candidates appeared before the District Collector, Kapurthala, who, vide order dated 10.3.2004 (P1) observed that Satpal (candidate) whose name had been recommended by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (SDM) Bholath was in illegal possession of Panchayat land in village Bhagu Puria, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala. Besides, against him decree of civil Court had been passed. A criminal case was also registered against him. It was also observed that the qualification and land of Balkar Singh (petitioner) was more than Mohinder Singh (respondent-3). However, it was noticed that other aspects were also to be considered and Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) was an ex-serviceman. Besides, his grandfather – Devi Ditta was Lambardar of the village. Therefore, Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) was found more suitable by agreeing with the report of the Tehsildar, Bholath. Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who, vide order dated 28.3.2005 (P3) set aside the order of the Collector. It was observed that Balkar Singh had more merit than the other candidates Satpal and Mohinder Singh (respondent-3). He had more land, was younger in age and had studied upto 10th Class whereas the other candidates were 8th or 4th Class. Accordingly, Balkar Singh (petitioner) was found more suitable and was appointed as Lambardar. Against the order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) filed an appeal, which was admitted by the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) on 19.8.2005 (R1) and order of the 2 CWP 14699 of 2008 Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was stayed. The matter was finally considered by the learned Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) who, vide her order dated 9.5.2008 (P10) after evaluation of the relative merit of the petitioner and the respondents, found that there was no illegality or perversity in the order issued by the Collector and the same was accordingly upheld. Balkar Singh (petitioner), aggrieved against the said order, has preferred the present petition. Mr Nagra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is more meritorious. He was observed to be having more land and better qualified. It is submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Punjab has passed a short order in which the contentions as raised, have not been properly considered and it is merely recorded that after making a comparative evaluation of the relative merit of the candidates including the petitioner and respondent-3, there appeared to be no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Collector. Therefore, it is submitted that the well-reasoned and considered order passed by the learned Commissioner has wrongly been set aside. In response, Ms Amandeep Soni, Advocate for respondent-3 has submitted that Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) is more suitable. He is an ex-serviceman and the present vacancy of Lambardar arose on the demise of his grandfather – Devi Ditta. Besides, it is submitted that the he fulfills the parameters for appointment as Lambardar in terms of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (Rules – for short). So far as the educational qualifications are concerned, it is submitted that Rule 15 of the Rules does not provide for any weightage to educational qualifications. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in 3 CWP 14699 of 2008 Nirbhey Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana (2008-1) PLR 156. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record. The District Collector, Kapurthala, in terms of order dated 10.3.2004 (P1) found Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) to be more suitable than the petitioner – Balkar Singh. It was observed that though Balkar Singh had more land and was better qualified, however, other aspects were also to be considered. It was observed that Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) was an ex-serviceman and Devi Ditta – ex-Lambardar was his grandfather. The appointment of a Lambardar, as is well known, is an administrative act and prerogative of the District Collector. As such, his selection is not to be lightly undone unless there is some gross irregularity, perversity or patent error apparent on the face of the record, which would warrant that the order passed by the District Collector appointing Lambardar is to be nullified. Indeed, the District Collector, on comparative assessment of the merits of the candidates, had appointed Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) as Lambardar. The relevant factors provided for appointment of a Lambardar are those as contained in Rule 15 of the Rules, which reads as under:- “Matters to be considered in first appointments - In all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had among other matters to – a) his hereditary claims; b) the property in the estate possessed by the candidate to secure the recovery of land revenue; c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; 4 CWP 14699 of 2008 d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India.” A perusal of the above Rule shows that regard is to be had to the hereditary claims, services rendered to the State by the candidate himself Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) admittedly has a hereditary claim inasmuch as his grandfather – Devi Ditta was the deceased Lambardar. Besides, he has been an ex-serviceman for which weightage is to be given. As regards the educational qualifications of the petitioner, it may be noticed that the Rule does not provide for having any regard to the same. In the case of Nirbhey Singh (supra), it was held by the Division Bench that Lambardar Rules do not prescribe for any minimum educational qualifications for appointment of a Lambardar and even an illiterate person can be appointed as Lambardar in the given circumstances of different cases. There is no dispute to the said proposition that an illiterate person can be appointed as a Lambardar. However, in the present case, Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) is not illiterate and has some educational qualification. He is, it is stated, 4th pass but nevertheless the Rules, do not provide for having any regard to the educational qualifications. It may also be noticed that the fact is that the District Collector had appointed Mohinder Singh (respondent-3) as a Lambardar, which order has ultimately been upheld vide impugned order dated 9.5.2008 (P10) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Cooperation). This 5 CWP 14699 of 2008 Court is not to sit in appeal over the findings and conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities. The jurisdiction of this Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is supervisory and not appellate. This Court is not to substitute its decisions for that reached at by the revenue authorities. The Court is concerned with the decision making process and not with the decision. In the circumstances, the decision having been validly reached at and it is not shown to be in any manner perverse or illegal, the same would not warrant any interference by this Court. The contention of Mr Nagra that the learned Financial Commissioner has passed a short order, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is inconsequential as the candidates had appeared before the Financial Commissioner and she had made a comparative evaluation of their relative merit and thereafter it was observed that there was no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Collector which was upheld. Therefore, the said contention is of not much significance. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 21.8.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 6