CWP No.4410 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.4410 of 2010 Date of Decision: 12.3.2010 Jaswant Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. JS. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner challenges orders dated 2.7.2009 and 22.8.2007, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot respectively. On the death of the Lambardar, applications were invited from interested candidates for appointment to the post of Lambardar of Village Nathpura, Tehsil and Distt. Bathinda. The petitioner and others applied for the post. The Collector appointed the petitioner as a Lambardar. However, in an appeal filed by the private respondents, the Commissioner accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Collector and appointed respondent no.3 as a Lambardar. A revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner had worked as a sarbarah Lambardar for four years, he was rightly appointed by the Collector. As a general rule, the choice of the Collector can only be CWP No.4410 of 2010 2 rejected where it is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to the rules. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have not recorded any such finding against the choice of the Collector. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector discloses that the petitioner was primarily appointed as he had worked as the sarbarah Lambardar, in essence, giving precedence to a hereditary claim, which is no longer permissible in view of a judgement of this court reported as Karnail Singh V. State of Haryana, 1973 PLJ 676. The Commissioner, therefore, rightly discarded the hereditary claim and on examining the merits of the parties, found that respondent no.3 is better educated, owns more land and is, therefore, the better candidate. I find no error in the findings recorded by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, as would require interference. Dismissed. 12.3.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE