In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.14757 of 2007 ..... Date of decision:14.10.2009 Amrik Singh .....Petitioner v. The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Gurmeet Gill, Advocate for respondent No.4. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The post of Lambardar in Village Jafarpur, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr fell vacant on account of the earlier Lambardar being dismissed. Accordingly, a proclamation was made in the village inviting applications for consideration for appointment of Lambardar. In response, three candidates including the petitioner applied for appointment as Lambardar. Verifications were carried out by the revenue authorities. The Circle Revenue Officer recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. The said report was forwarded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr who also C.W.P. No.14757 of 2007 [2] recommended the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. The matter was then considered by the District Collector, Nawanshahr who vide order dated 25.7.2006 (Annexure-P.1) appointed Bachitar Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar. The petitioner aggrieved against the same filed an appeal (Annexure-P.2) before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure-P.3). The petitioner then filed a revision petition (Annexure-P.4) before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, who vide order dated 25.7.2007 (Annexure-P.5) has dismissed the same. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 25.7.2006 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the District Collector, Nawanshahr, the order dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the order dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab. Notice of motion was issued in the case and reply has been filed by respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a better candidate for the appointment as Lambardar and there has been improper consideration of the inter se merit of the petitioner and respondent No.4. It is submitted that the petitioner is mature in age, inasmuch as, he is 53 years of age whereas respondent No.4 is 56 years of age. Besides, he has more land than respondent No.4. The petitioner has 133 Kanals of land whereas respondent No.4 has about 4 Kanals. Besides, he is always available in the village whereas respondent No.4 is working as a Manager of a Cooperative Society. Besides, the wife of respondent No.4 is a permanent C.W.P. No.14757 of 2007 [3] resident of U.K. and he also goes there of and on and therefore, is unavailable in the village. In response, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has submitted that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar it is primarily the choice and prerogative of the Collector and his choice is not liable to be interfered with especially when it has been upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. It is submitted that respondent No.4 is younger in age than the petitioner. Besides, he is more educated, inasmuch as, he is tenth pass whereas the petitioner is only seventh pass. Respondent No.4 has 4 Kanals of land which is sufficient to recover the Government revenue in case of need. Moreover, he is a regular blood donor. It is also submitted that the fact that respondent No.4 is working as Manager of a Cooperative Society is to be taken as an advantage for him and he is more familiar with working of a Lambardar. As regards his going abroad, it is submitted that passport of respondent No.4 expired in the year 2000 and, thereafter, he has never gone abroad. As such, it is incorrect to say that the respondent No.4 frequently goes abroad. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is well known that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar it is the administrative choice and prerogative of the District Collector. As such, selection of a Lambardar made by the District Collector is not to be lightly undone, until and unless it is shown that there has been some gross irregularity, perversity or patent error in passing the order appointing a Lambardar. Besides, this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review does not sit in appeal over the findings and conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities in the matter of appointment of Lambardar. The C.W.P. No.14757 of 2007 [4] revenue authorities having considered the inter se merit and reached at a conclusion as to who is a better candidate for appointment, this Court is not to substitute its view in exercise of its power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Judicial review is not to be mistaken for an appeal. A right of appeal is a statutory right which can be invoked by a party aggrieved against an order when it is so provided in the Punjab Land Revenue Act. However, the right to seek judicial review is available even when there is a finality to an order or an ouster clause in an Act that the order passed by an authority thereunder is final and is not to be questioned in a Court of law or that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of any matter required to be dealt with by the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the extra- ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court conferred by the Constitution is not barred. However, an important aspect to be kept in view is that the Courts are concerned with the competence of the authority and the order in which the authority takes a decision and not the actual decision taken by the authority. In an appeal, however, the appellate Court has the power to consider the merits of the case and substitute its own decision. Therefore, in case the revenue authorities on comparative assessment of the merit of the candidates have found respondent No.4 to be more suitable for appointment as Lambardar and the decision is not to be shown to be perverse or irrational then this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review is not to embark upon an inquiry and re-determine the inter se merit. The decision having been validly reached at would not warrant any interference of this Court. C.W.P. No.14757 of 2007 [5] Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. October 14, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes