CWP No.7829 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 04.05.2011 Surjit Singh Vs. F.C. (Appeals-1),Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. PS Jammu, Advocate,for the petitioner. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. This petition has been filed against the orders dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Bathinda District Bathinda, appointing respondent No.4 as a Lambardar for village Bhai Rupa as also order dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot and the order 29.01.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh, dismissing the revision of the petitioner. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on the death of Mehar Singh, Lambardar of village Bhai Rupa, Circle Revenue Officer (Tehsildar) invited applications by proclamation to fill up the post of Lambardar. As many as 8 candidates including the petitioner and the private respondents applied for the post in question. After verification of their antecedents, Tehsildar, Rampura Phul, recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of Lambardar. His recommendation, however, did not find favour with the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (SDM), Rampura Phul, who recommended the name of Sukhchain Singh-respondent No.7, CWP No.7829 of 2011 2 for appointment as Lambardar. Recommendations were considered by the Collector, Bathinda and after hearing the parties, the Collector formulated an opinion that respondent No.4, Gurnaib Singh son of Arjan Singh, is Middle Pass and keeping his other antecedents, appointed him as Lambardar in preference to all other candidates including the petitioner. About the petitioner, it has been observed that he has been involved in two criminal cases though it has come on record that he was acquitted from criminal cases. Against the order of the Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner which also came to be dismissed. Similarly, a revision filed before the Financial Commissioner has also resulted in dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the authorities below have wrongly rejected the candidature of the petitioner who is younger in age. He also holds four acres of land in the village. The petitioner is also Matriculate. He has also remained Vice-President of the village Sports Club. The further contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 is 60 years of age. I have carefully gone through the orders passed by the authorities below. There is concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the authorities about the candidature of respondent No.4. It is settled law that opinion of the Collector should be respected in regard to the appointment of the Lambardar. Otherwise also, the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal to re-apprise the material on record unless the same is perverse in nature. There is no perversity in the orders passed by the authorities below. CWP No.7829 of 2011 3 In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. Dismissed. No costs. 04.05.2011 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE