RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) After death of Lambardar of the village Shri Ram, process was initiated for appointment of Lambardar of village Cheersi. Three applications were received, one from the petitioner, another from respondent No.4 and one from Om Parkash son of Jagmal Singh. Om Parkash withdrew his name. Tehsildar and Assistant Collector IInd Grade recommended the name of the petitioner. Collector, after considering the merit of the candidates, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar on 5.6.2007. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, who dismissed the same on 5.6.2009. Petitioner filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which was also dismissed on 2.6.2011. Alleging that the impugned orders are erroneous, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) The counsel contends that petitioner is younger in age being 35 years old, whereas respondent No.4 is 44 years of age. Petitioners claims to be 12th class pass, whereas respondent No.4 is stated to be illiterate, though as per the impugned order, he is 6th class pass. These arguments, as raised by the counsel for the petitioners, were duly considered by the Collector as can be seen from the order passed by him. The Collector had noticed that respondent No.4 is 6th class pass and 44 years old. Both were having three acres cultivable land. The grand-father of respondent No.4 was earlier an Lambardar and taking this fact into account, it was observed by the Collector that he would have experience of Lambardari. He was also not statedly taking part in any politics. The Collector noticed that respondent No.4 was better placed than the petitioner and appointed him as Lambardar.
(3.) Merely because the petitioner is younger in age and is little more qualified would not be a reason enough to upset the choice exercised by the Collector and these facts were duly considered by the Collector. The submission that the Collector had appointed respondent No.4 on the basis of hereditary claim cannot be accepted because it is the working experience, which was taken into consideration and not the hereditary claim, as contended. I do not see any justification to interfere in the choice exercised by the Collector, which was upheld by the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner.;