JASBIR SINGH,J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed against an order dated February 1, 2011, vide which Civil Writ Petition No. 2001 of 2010, filed by the appellant, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) In this case, dispute is with regard to an appointment to the post of Lambardar in village Kishanpura, tehsil and district Nawan Shahr. Appellant and respondent No. 3 were the contesting candidates. The Collector, after getting report from the lower revenue staff and taking note of the comparative merits of the candidates, appointed respondent No. 3 as Lambardar in the village.
(3.) The appellant went in appeal. The Commissioner reversed an order passed by the Collector, set aside appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Lambardar and instead appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village. When passing that order, the Commissioner failed to discuss comparative merits of both the candidates. Rather in a very cursory manner, it was said that the appellant had more merit than the other candidates and was an experienced person. Benefit was given to the appellant merely on a ground that against him, no complaint was made by the Sarpanch, that he was not found in unauthorised occupation of the Panchayat land. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision petition, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated December 16, 2009. Order passed by the Collector was restored. The appellant came to this Court by filing the above said writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on February 1, 2011, by observing as under: "10 Respondent No. 3 is substantially younger in age as compared to the petitioner, being 40 years of age, whereas the petitioner is 52 years of age. Respondent No.3 further has 39 kanals 9 marlas of land in the village as against the land holding of the petitioner i.e. 25 kanals. Respondent No.3 also has experience as Sarbrah Lambardar, being nephew of the deceased Lambardar. The other criteria's are by and large comparable. The discretion exercised by the District Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar has to be accepted, in case it does not suffer from arbitrariness or perverse exercise of power. In the case in hand, I am of the considered opinion that the District Collector has taken into account the relevant merit factors while directing appointment of respondent No.3 as Lambardar and, therefore, the Commissioner, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, committed an illegality in interfering with the same. I find no fault with the reasons assigned by the Financial Commissioner for upholding the order passed by the District Collector and setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. No ground for judicial review of the order is made out." ;