Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner along with Respondent No. 4 and two other persons were contenders for the office of the Village Headman. The Collector selected the 4th Respondent. A copy of the order passed by the Collector on December 11, 1996 is at Annexure P -1 with the writ petition. The Petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated July 24, 1998. A copy of this order is at Annexure P -2 with the writ petition. The Petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated January 18,2000. A copy to the order is at Annexure P -3 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the orders, the Petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He alleges that Respondent No. 4 was not suitable for appointment. The authorities have erred in appointing him. Thus, he prays that the appointment of the 4th Respondent be annulled.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. M.K. Garg, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He has made a two -fold submission. Firstly, it has been contended that the mere conviction of the Petitioner did not render him unsuitable for appointment as a Village Headman. Secondly, it has been submitted that Respondent No. 4 was actually unsuitable as he had made a false declaration; regarding his annual income. As for the first contention, it deserves mention that the Petitioner has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 326/323 IPC. The order of the trial Court was affirmed by the Sessions Court. Mr. Garg submits that Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules does not render a convict as ineligible.
(3.) WE have perused the provisions. It inter -alia provides that while considering the claims for appointment as Headman the "character, ability and freedom from indebtedness" shall be kept in view. The personal qualities of an individual are, thus, a relevant consideration. The fact that the Petitioner had been convicted was certainly relevant. Mr. Garg contends that the rule does not make him ineligible. Assuming it to be so, the Petitioner's claim was considered. He was not left out as ineligible. The factum of conviction was relevant while considering the contending claims of different persons. The authorities have taken this fact into consideration and found that the Petitioner is not suitable. They have committed no illegality in doing so;