- (1.) The petitioner and respondent No.3 were applicants for appointment as a Lambardar of Village Gulabewala, District Muktsar.
(2.) The vacancy occurred on account of death of Baldev Singh, earlier Lambardar. On the basis of recommendation made by Assistant Collector IInd Grade and Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar, after weighing merits and demerits of both the candidates. Respondent No.3 filed an appeal against the same before the Commissioner, who reversed the order passed by the Collector and accepted his appeal on 10.6.2008. The Financial Commissioner has also upheld the order passed by the Commissioner and, thus, the choice exercised by the Collector has been interfered with.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is of young age; he is more qualified; he has an impressive personality; his name was also recommended by the Panchayat and so the Collector had appointed him as Lambardar. The reason for which the Commissioner has interfered in the choice exercised by the Collector is that respondent No.3 is a mature person and 45 years of age. He owns more land. It is also noticed that respondent No.3 has worked as Sarbrah Lambardar for 7-8 years. Respondent No.3 was preferred not only on this count but also on the ground that he has a hereditary claim, which factor has, thus, been taken into consideration. The petitioner was non-suited on the ground that he is 25 years old and not mature.;