IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5904 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 01, 2011 Jatinder Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, Karnal; Order dated 22.6.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak; and Order dated 28.8.2009 CWP No.5904 of 2010 [2] (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. 2. Collector, Karnal, appointed respondent No.4, Ram Niwas as Lambardar for village Mubarkabad, Tehsil & District Karnal. The order has been upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities. All the orders are under challenge at the hands of the petitioner who claims a better right being more suitable for appointment as Lambardar. 3. So far as comparative merit is concerned, the petitioner at the point in time when he applied for Lambardari, was 17 ½ years of age. Petitioner has passed 10+2 class and is grand son of deceased Lambardar. Respondent No.4, Ram Niwas is 29 years of age; 10th class pass; and is stated to be a Driver of a Private Bus. 4. The Collector appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar while considering the comparative merit. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have not interfered with the order passed by the Collector essentially on the ground that it is the choice of the Collector that is to be respected in regard to appointment of Lambardar. 5. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to the CWP No.5904 of 2010 [3] effect that respondent is serving on the post of driver and therefore, would not be in a position to discharge his duties as given out under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondent has pointed out that the respondent is on night duty and is available during the course of the day for discharging his duties as Lambardar. 7. At the point in time when applications for appointment of Lambardar were to be filed, there was no age embargo. The petitioner was 17½ years of age and therefore, was not even a voter. Surely a person just out of school cannot be given preference over a person aged 29 years. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any perversity in the orders passed by the statutory authorities in appointing the private respondent as Lambardar. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. It is however made clear that in case respondent No.4 is found to be absent from the estate and is unable to discharge his duties or negligent to discharge his duties, application can be filed for dismissal of the respondent CWP No.5904 of 2010 [4] under Rule 16(ii)(c) and (f) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. (AJAI LAMBA) March 01, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?