IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10590 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 19, 2011 Krishan Lal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in challenge to Order dated 17.1.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum Collector, Nawanshahar, and order dated 7.4.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the revisional authority i.e. Financial Commissioner. CWP No.10590 of 2010 [2] 2. Dilbagh Singh, Lambardar of village Chankoi, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahar died whereupon vacancy of Lambardar was required to be filled. Petitioner, Krishan Lal and respondent No.4, Chuhar Singh were the main contestants who contested the issue upto the Financial Commissioner. 3. Collector, Nawanshahar directed appointment of respondent No.4, Chuhar Singh, essentially considering his large land holding viz. 58 kanal 4 marla as against the land holding of petitioner viz. only 4 kanal. All other parameters were by and large similar. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, however accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed appointment of Krishan Lal (petitioner) on account of his younger age viz. 53 years, and because he had served the Army. Educational qualification of both the candidates is equal. 4. Respondent No.4 carried a revision to the Financial Commissioner, who while attaching more credence to the order of the Collector, has set aside the order of Commissioner and directed appointment of respondent No.4, Chuhar Singh as Lambardar of the village. 5. I have considered the contentions CWP No.10590 of 2010 [3] of learned counsel. 6. Both the candidates are equally qualified. There is no substantial difference in age in so much as while petitioner is aged 53 years, respondent No.4 is aged 57 years. There is substantial difference in relation to the land holding. Respondent No.4 has more than 58 kanal of land holding whereas the petitioner owns just 4 kanal of land. Substantial weightage has been given to the petitioner by the Commissioner in regard to his service in the Army. 7. In my considered opinion, the Collector being a revenue officer at the district level is best aware of requirement of appointment of Lambardar for a particular village considering the comparative merit of the candidates who appear before him. Unless discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or for malafide reasons, the order is not required to be interfered with. The Commissioner however interfered with the order passed by the Collector which has been set aside by the Financial Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction. I find no reason to judicially review the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 8. In the context of Lambardar, the basic qualification, which is equal in both the cases; social standing, which is also comparable; CWP No.10590 of 2010 [4] and land holding are required to be considered. The respondent has substantially more land as compared to the petitioner viz. 54 kanal more than the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that it is a relevant criteria to be considered in exercise of discretion and calls for no interference. 9. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 19, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?