IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.3457 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 3, 2011 RESHAM RAM ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sonu Chahal, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. BS Randhawa, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 The District Collector directed appointment of Krishan Pal- respondent No.4 as Lambardar for Village Bhaura, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. The petitioner carried an appeal, which has been dismissed by the Commissioner. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Financial Commissioner by way of a revision petition, which has also been dismissed. The orders passed by the three authorities i.e. Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-4, respectively, have been impugned in this petition. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress on the fact that the petitioner is son of deceased Lambardar and, therefore, has a better hereditary claim. Civil Writ Petition No.3457 of 2010 2 3 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 So far as comparative merit is concerned, the petitioner is 7th class pass and 41 years of age. Because it is Harijan Lambardari, neither of the side is holding any land and, therefore, the issue is required to be considered in that context. Respondent No.4 is 10+2 class pass and a young man of 23 years. Considering the education and giving substantial weightage to the same, he has been appointed. 5 So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner claiming preferential right on account of hereditary claim is concerned, reference may be made to the judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab Chandigarh and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 862. The provision i.e. Rule 5(a) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909 (for short 'the Rules') has been held ultra vires, being in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6 In any case, the merit of the petitioner and respondent No.4 is not comparable. Respondent No.4 is certainly more meritorious, being more educated, which is one of the relevant criteria's to be considered in the context of duties of a Lambardar, as given out in Rule 20 of the Rules. 7 No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out as no illegality can be traced in the impugned orders. 8 The petition is dismissed. February 3, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?