IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1523 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 17.11.2011 Sukhwant Singh .... APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.3.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 22889 of 2010) filed by the appellant challenging the orders of the revenue authorities, appointing respondent No.4 Davinder Singh as Lambardar of village Chak Janisar, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur, has been dismissed. In this case, nine candidates applied for the post of Lambardar of the aforesaid village and name of respondent No.4, who owns 19 acres of land and is B.A. Pass, was recommended by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jalalabad. The said recommendation was accepted by the Collector, LPA No. 1523 of 2011 -2- Ferozepur. Though the appellant did not appear before the Collector, when the case for appointment of Lambardar was considered, but looking into the recommendation made by the lower authorities, the revenue authorities, qualification, land owned by respondent No.4 and other factors, the Collector, vide his order dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure P-1), appointed him as Lambardar of the village. The said order of the Collector was affirmed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur as well as the Financial Commissioner, vide orders dated 11.6.2009 and 9.9.2010 (Annexures P-2 and P-3). All these three orders of the authorities below were challenged by the appellant by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 22889 of 2010. Before the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, the only argument raised by the appellant was that he is more qualified as compared to respondent No.4. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is MA, B.Ed., and respondent No.4 is Graduate. This contention of the appellant has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Before us also, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the argument that the Collector should have given preference to the appellant, because of his better educational qualification and young age. This contention is not acceptable, because in our opinion, the Collector while appointing the Lambardar has to take into consideration various factors. It is also established rule that in matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of the Collector is final and normally, it should not be interfered until and unless choice of the Collector is perverse and totally against rules. This is LPA No. 1523 of 2011 -3- not the case here. So far as the educational qualification is concerned, in Jasvir Singh Versus Harsharanjit Singh and others, 1997 (2) PLJ 380, it has been held that the educational qualification is not a pre-requisite for the post of Lambardar. Mere high educational qualification may not be given overriding importance. Thus, in this case, the revenue authorities, while considering the comparative merits and de-merits of all the candidates, have appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village and the said appointment should not be set aside merely on account of the fact that the appellant possesses higher qualification of M.A., B.Ed. A Lambardar has to perform his functions and duties in a vilage and has to deal with the villagers, for which no higher education is required. Therefore, no preference for the higher qualification can be given for appointing a person as Lambardar of the village. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 17, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE