In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Civil Writ Petition No.3038 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:23.11.2009 Lal Singh .....Petitioner v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the order dated 10.9.2007 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab (respondent No.1). There was no Lambardar from amongst the members of the Schedules Castes in village Mehna, District Moga even though there was a considerable population of members of the Schedules Castes in the said village. Accordingly, a post of Lambardar for members of the Scheduled Castes of Village Mehna, Tehsil and District Moga was sanctioned by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide memo dated 18.1.2005. The process for filling-up the newly created post of Lambardar from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes was initiated. The Tehsildar, C.W.P. No.3038 of 2008 [2] Moga asked for applications from the candidates interested for consideration for appointment as Lambardar by issuance of a proclamation by way of 'munadi'. Three candidates including Lal Singh (petitioner) and Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.2) besides Pritam Singh son of Kulwant Singh applied for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. The Tehsildar, Moga after consideration of the matter recommended to the Collector, Moga the name of Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.2) for appointment as Lambardar. The District Collector, Moga gave an opportunity of hearing to all the three candidates and after consideration vide order dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure-P.1) appointed Lal Singh (petitioner) as Lambardar. Sanad of Lambardari (Annexure P2) was issued to the petitioner. Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.2) aggrieved against the said order (Annexure P1) filed an appeal (Annexure-P.3) before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur who vide order dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure-P.4) accepted the appeal and set aside the appointment of Lal Singh (petitioner) as Lambardar. It was held that the petitioner was getting old age pension and a person who is surviving on social security was not a suitable person to be appointed as Lambardar as he was not able to support himself financially. A person who cannot support himself financially, it was observed, would not be helpful to the State as well as the people of the village. Accordingly, it was held that all the candidates were not suitable for the post of Lambardar. The order dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure P1) passed by the District Collector was set side and the case was remanded for making a proclamation in the village for inviting C.W.P. No.3038 of 2008 [3] fresh applications for the post of Lambardar of Village Mehna from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes. The petitioner aggrieved against the said order filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab (respondent No.1) who vide order dated 10.9.2007 (Annexure-P.5) has dismissed the same. It was observed that the petitioner Lal Singh had read upto Fourth Class and was 70 years old and he was not financially sound and was taking old age pension for his survival. Therefore, the learned Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) found no irregularity in the order (Annexure P4) of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the fact that the petitioner is receiving the old age pension was not a ground raised by Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.3) in his grounds of appeal (Annexure- P.3) and yet the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur has adverted to the said fact. Besides, it is submitted that a person who is receiving pension cannot be debarred from becoming a Lambardar. After going through the records of the case and giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, in my view, no interference is called for against the orders dated 10.9.2007 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) and the order dated 14.2.2006 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. In the matter of appointment of Lambardar from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes in terms of Rule 19-B of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, regard is to be had to the following conditions:- C.W.P. No.3038 of 2008 [4] “19-B. (i) In appointing the headman, regard shall be had among other matters, to - (a) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; (b) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness. (ii) He shall be dismissed when he is sentenced to imprisonment for one year or upwards or to any heavier sentence. (iii) He may be dismissed when - (a) criminal proceedings which have been taken against him show that he is unfit to be entrusted any longer with the duties of his office; or (b) he is seriously embarrassed by debt; (c) owing to age or physical or mental incapacity or absence from the estate, he is unable to discharge the duties of his office; or (d) there is reason to believe that he has taken part in or concealed illicit distillation, or the smuggling or cocaine opium or charas; (e) he takes part in any unconstitutional agitation against the Government or fails to give his active support to the Government in the maintenance of law and order; or (f) he neglects to discharge his duties or is otherwise shown to be incompetent. (iv) He shall perform all duties prescribed in rule 20 of these C.W.P. No.3038 of 2008 [5] Rules except those prescribed in clauses (i) to (iv) thereof. (v) He shall not be entitled to any remuneration in the form of pachotra, etc.” A perusal of the above shows that for the appointment to the post of Lambardar from amongst the members of Scheduled castes regard is to be had to the services rendered to the State by the candidate himself or by his family. Besides, he is free from indebtedness. Old age is also one of the factors which has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, even though mere receipt of pension as a social security scheme is by itself not to be a disqualification for appointment, however, the learned Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) in her order dated 10.9.2007 (Annexure- P.5) has observed that the petitioner had read upto Fourth class and was 70 years old and he was not financially sound also and was taking old pension for his survival. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the findings and conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities in the matter of appointment of Lambardar. Besides, this Court is not to substitute its decision for that reached at by the revenue authorities. This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction is concerned with the decision making process and not with the decision reached at by the revenue authorities. Therefore, if the revenue authorities i.e. the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue (respondent No.1) had found that the petitioner was not suitable for appointment as Lambardar and had decided to seek fresh applications, no C.W.P. No.3038 of 2008 [6] interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. November 23, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*/amit NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No