IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.16911 OF 2008 Date of Decision:01.10.2008. Mathura Dass ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The Tehsildar as well as the Assistant Collector Ist Grade recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of Scheduled Caste Lambardar of Village Nahal, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The Collector however did not accept the recommendation and ordered the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The Commissioner accepted the appeal of the petitioner and appointed him as Scheduled Caste Lambardar. The respondent No.4, aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner dated 15-06-2006 filed revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner accepted the order of the Collector and reversed the C.W.P. No.16911 OF 2008 -2- order of the Commissioner. Thus, the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 29-08-2007 confirmed the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar by the Collector. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Collector, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar. No infirmity has been pointed out with the order of the Collector or the Financial Commissioner in considering respondent No.4 as more meritorious candidate than the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner is 47 years old and has studied only upto 6th class, while respondent No.4 has studied upto 10th class. He owns a house and has 100 marlas of land. He has also retired from the post of Accountant. Taking into consideration the above comparative statement of both the petitioner and respondent, the respondent No.4 was assumed more meritorious by the Collector. It is also a well settled proposition of law that the choice of the Collector for appointment of Lambardar should not be interfered with unless and until, there is patent illegality on the face of it. No such infirmity has been pointed out in the order of the Collector and therefore, the Financial Commissioner has rightly set aside the C.W.P. No.16911 OF 2008 -3- order of the Commissioner and upheld the order of the Collector, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) 01.10.2008. JUDGE gurpreet