In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.10691 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:21.7.2009 Satinder Pal Singh .....Petitioner v. The Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner being aggrieved against the appointment of Surinder Singh (respondent No.3) as Lambardar of Village Gill, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 5.9.2006 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (respondent No.2) and the order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure- P.3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab (respondent No.1). Shri Ram Krishan, Lambardar of Village Gill, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur died on 10.2.2005. To fill-up this vacancy proceedings were initiated. Proclamation was made in the village for inviting applications. In response, 19 candidates applied and expressed their willingness for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. The Naib Tehsildar, Tanda in terms of his report dated 13.8.2005 recommended the C.W.P. No.10691 of 2009 [2] name of the petitioner for appointment of Lambardar. This was endorsed by the Tehsildar Dasuya vide his report dated 25.8.2005. Out of 19 candidates who had applied 11 withdrew their applications in favour of respondent No.3, besides five withdrew their applications in favour of the petitioner. Ultimately four candidates i.e. Manjinder Singh, Nirmal Singh, Surinder Singh (respondent No.3) and Satinder Pal Singh (petitioner ) were left in the field. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dasuya considered the claim of the contesting candidates and vide report dated 9.9.2005 recommended the name of Surinder Singh (respondent No.3) which was forwarded to the Collector, Hoshiarpur. The Collector, Hoshiarpur considered the case of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3. The petitioner was held to be more qualified than Surinder Singh (respondent No.3). Accordingly, vide order dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure-P.6) the Collector recommended the name of the petitioner. The Commissioner, Jalndhar Division, Jalandhar, however, found Surinder Singh to be more suitable. The Financial Commissioner endorsed the view taken by the Commissioner. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to sit in appeal over the findings and conclusions that have been reached at by the revenue authorities on the matter of choice of the Lambardar. There is nothing to show that the decision of the Commissioner or that of the Financial Commissioner is, in any manner, perverse or irrational which would warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar found that Surinder Singh (respondent No.3) was a mature person of 40 years of age, was a Matriculate, owned more land than the petitioner and was recommended by SDM, Dasuya. Besides, 11 candidates have withdrawn in C.W.P. No.10691 of 2009 [3] his favour. He was nephew of the deceased Lambardar and had been assisting his deceased uncle in the discharge of Lambardari functions. One of his uncle was an ex-serviceman and thereby his family had rendered service to the nation. The petitioner, it was observed was not a mature person. He had divorced his wife only after a month or so of marriage, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which a woman had died and FIR was lodged, had taken loan from the bank and had his vote at two places. It was rightly observed that the said deficiencies did not constitute a bar in the appointment of Lambardar but did reflect adversely. In the consideration process Surinder Singh (respondent No.3) was found to be more meritorious. Normally, the choice of District Collector is not to be interfered with or lightly to be undone, however, it is nevertheless an appeal which is a continuation of the original proceedings. Therefore, if the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division on the basis of relative assessment of the candidates had come to a finding to be different from that recorded by the District Collector then the same is not liable to be interfered with unless it is shown that the same is perverse or erroneous. Not only this the order of the Commissioner has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner on 13.12.2007. The fact that the family of Surinder Singh (respondent No.3) has rendered service to the nation and his uncle was an ex-serviceman and also the fact that Surinder Singh (respondent No.3) was a nephew of deceased Lambardar have weighed with the revenue authorities. Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules provides for matters to be considered in first appointment of headman. In terms of Rule 15 regards is to have to hereditary claims, the property in the estate possessed by the candidate to C.W.P. No.10691 of 2009 [4] secure the recovery of land revenue, services rendered to the State by himself or by his family and his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness. Therefore, in the parameters provided Surinder Singh (respondent No.3) having been found to be more meritorious does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction. This is more so for the reason that the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II) was passed on 13.12.2007 and the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. July 21, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No