JUDGMENT P. C. Balakrishna Menon, C. J.—This writ petition raises the question as to whether an appointment to the post of lamberdar (Village Officer) based on hereditary preference, is sustainable under Article 16 of the Constitution ? 2. Tie post of lamberdar of village Kothi Kharagad tehsil Banjar fell vacant on the death of lamberdar Jaishi Ram. The Tehsildar invited applications for appointment of a lamberdar for the village. Seven persons including the petitioner and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 applied for appointment to the post. The petitioner had worked as SARB&AH LAMBERDAR of the village for over 19 years and was holding 8.11 bighas of land. The fourth respondent was a minor aged 11 years and was the son of Late Jaishi Ram, Lamberdar. He was holding 23.14 bighas of. land. The Tehsildar forwarded all the applications to the Collector, Kullu with his recommendation for the appointment of the fourth respondent as lamberdar for the reason that he is the son of the late lamberdar Jaishi Ram. The third respondent, the Collector passed Annexure P-l order appointing the fourth respondent as Lamberdar. The operative part of Annexure P-l order of the Collector reads! "Sb. Ashwani Kumar is son of the deceased Lamberdar. He has been recommended by the Tehsildar Banjar. I am therefore of the opinion that Shri Ashwani Kumar deserves consideration and accordingly appoint him a lamberdar Kothi Kharagad in place of his deceased father. The Tehsildar Banjar is directed to recommend the name of a suitable person to work as Sarbrah Lamberdar till Shri Ashwani Kumar attains the age of the majority." 3. The petitioner and another applicant by name, Jai Singh, appealed to the Divisional Commissioner under section 14 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act. Annexure P-2 is the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner vide his order Annexure P-3 dated 15-7-1983, allowed the petitioners appeal and setting aside the order of the Collector, directed his appointment as Lamberdar of the village. The appeal preferred by Jai Singh was dismissed. The Divisional Commissioner gave the following reasons to prefer the petitioner Khub Ram for the post of lamberdar: "I am of the opinion that there was no need to appoint Sh. Ashwani Kumar minor, as Lamberdar when there were other candidates available in the field. The principle of hereditary claim is not to be considered in first appointment of Lamberdar. The Divisional Commissioner gave the following reasons to prefer the petitioner Khub Ram for the post of lamberdar: "I am of the opinion that there was no need to appoint Sh. Ashwani Kumar minor, as Lamberdar when there were other candidates available in the field. The principle of hereditary claim is not to be considered in first appointment of Lamberdar. I find that Sh. Khub Ram who has worked as Sarbrah Lamberdar for 19 years, has got much more experience for discharging the duties as a Lamberdar. As already mentioned, Shri Khub Ram had been acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu, and thus there is no disqualification attached to him. He is holding 8. 4. bighas of land which is sufficient to serve as suretv against the Government revenue. Respondent Nos 4 and 5 filed separate appeals to the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner by Annexure P-4 order dated 26-4-1984 set aside Annexure P-3, appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner and restored the order of the Collector appointing the minor fourth respondent as lamberdar of the village According to the Financial Commissioner, the Divisional Commissioner ought not have lightly interfered with the decision of the Collector. Even though the office of lamberdar cannot be claimed by way of inheritance, the fact that the fourth respondents father was the lamberdar of the village, according to the Financial Commissioner, is a matter of considerable importance in selecting the candidate for appointment. An application for review filed by the petitioner under section 16 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner as per his order Annexure P-6 dated 30-6-1984. The petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks the issue of an appropriate writ to quash Annexures P-4 and P-5 orders of the Financial Commissioner and further seeks a direction for his appointment as the lambardar of the village. 5. There is no dispute that the lamberdar is a Village-Officer within the meaning of that expression in section 4 (21) of the H. Pr Land Revenue Act. There cannot be any doubt that the lamberdar helds a civil post under the State. The principal function of the lamberdar is the Collection of Land Revenue on behalf of the State and his remuneration is paid out of the State funds. The lamberdar is appointed by the Collector and he is also under his disciplinary jurisdiction. 6. There cannot be any doubt that the lamberdar helds a civil post under the State. The principal function of the lamberdar is the Collection of Land Revenue on behalf of the State and his remuneration is paid out of the State funds. The lamberdar is appointed by the Collector and he is also under his disciplinary jurisdiction. 6. The Supreme Court in State of Assam v, Kanak Chandra, AIR 1967 SC 884, had occasion to consider the nature of the post held by Mauzadar in the Assam Valley. A Mauzadar, like a lamberdar is an officer responsible for the collection of land-revenue. Considering the nature of the post of a Mauzadar, the Supreme Court held at page 886 "Judged in this light, a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley is the holder of a civil post under the State. The State has the power and the right to select and appoint a Mauzadar and the power to suspend and dismiss him. He is a subordinate public servant working under the supervision and control of the Deputy Commissioner. He receives by way of remuneration a commission on his collections and sometimes a salary. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and him. He holds an office on the revenue side of the administration to which specific and onerous duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office which falls vacant on the death or removal of the incumbent and which is filled up by successive appointments. He is a responsible officer exercising delegated powers of Government. Mauzadars in the Assam Valley of appointed Revenue Officers and ex-officio Assistant Settlement Officers. Originally, a Mauzadar may have been a revenue farmer and an independent contractor. But having regard to the existing system of his recruitment, employment and functions, he is a servant and a holder of a civil post under the State". 7. Since the post of Lamberdar is a civil post under the State, hereditary preference for appointment to the post is discriminatory and is opposed to Article 16 of the Constitution. Such preference based on descend is in direct violation of clause (2) of Article 16. 8. 7. Since the post of Lamberdar is a civil post under the State, hereditary preference for appointment to the post is discriminatory and is opposed to Article 16 of the Constitution. Such preference based on descend is in direct violation of clause (2) of Article 16. 8. In Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1961 SC 564, the Supreme Court declared section 6 (1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act as ultra vires and void for violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. S. K. Das, ). on behalf of a Constitution Bench stated at page 572 : "The simple question before us is whether the office, though it is an office under the State, is of such a nature that Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution are not attracted to it. We are of the view that there is nothing in the nature of the office which takes it out of the ambit of Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution. An office has its emoluments, and it would be wrong to hold that though the office is an office under the State, it is not within the ambit of Article 16 because at a time prior to the Constitution, the law recognised a custom by which there was a preferential right to the office in the members of a particular family. The real question is—is that custom which is recognised and regulated by the Act consistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 16 ? We do not agree with learned Counsel for respondent 4 that the family had any pre-existing right to property in the shape of the emoluments of the office, independent or irrespective of the office, f there was no such pre-existing right to property apart from the office, then the answer must clearly be that Article 16 applies and section 6 (i) of the Act in so far as it makes a discrimination on the ground of descent only, is violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner." 9. The fourth respondent though a minor was preferred for appointment only for the reason that he was the son of the late lamberdar. Such a ground of preference is totally irrelevant and should not have been taken into account in the matter of appointment. The fourth respondent though a minor was preferred for appointment only for the reason that he was the son of the late lamberdar. Such a ground of preference is totally irrelevant and should not have been taken into account in the matter of appointment. A minor, otherwise, cannot be expected as a proper person for appointment to the post of lamberdar. The appointment involves financial responsibility of collection of land-revenue on behalf of the State, and its remittance in the State Treasury. 10 The fifth respondent had not appealed against Annexure P-l order of the Collector whereby his claim for appointment had been rejected. His appeal before the Financial Commissioner should have been dismissed on that ground. The Divisional Commissioner has found that the petitioner who had 19 years experience, as Sarbrah lamberdar is the proper person for appointment as lamberdar. The appeal by Jai Singh was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner as per Annexure P-3 order. He has not pursued the matter any further. The contest survives only between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent being a minor was unfit for appointment to the post. We, therefore, quash the orders Annexures P-4 and P-6 of the Financial Commissioner and restore Annexure P-3 order of the Divisional Commissioner appointing the petitioner as lamberdar of the village. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The parties will suffer their costs. Petition allowed.