Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the Original Application No.1169 of 1994 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in proceeding Rc.No.47284/92/I2 dated 2. 1994 and quash the same, and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.20593 of 2006. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.02.1994 of the first respondent in and by which, the first respondent has appointed the fourth respondent as a permanent Village Assistant of Seeyathamangai Village of Nannilam Taluk, Nagai Quaid-e-Millet District. It is the case of the petitioner that consequent to the retirement of one Packirisamy on 30.06.1991 in Seeyathamangai Village, Nannilam Taluk, Nagai Quaid-e-Millet District, the petitioner along with three other persons applied for the post of Village Assistant. The third respondent, upon assessment of the merits of the candidates, rejected the application of two persons on the ground that they possessed cultivating lands and they were also more qualified. The candidature of the fourth respondent was also rejected by the Tahsildar, by his order dated 27.01.1991 on the ground that he possessed cultivating lands in his name and he was not successful in the interview. The Tahsildar found the petitioner to be suitable for the post of Village Assistant and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on 27.01.1991 by the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Nannilam Taluk, third respondent herein. The appeal filed by the fourth respondent to the Sub Collector, Nagapattinam, second respondent herein, was rejected on 29.05.1992, confirming the appointment made by the third respondent. In the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent, the first respondent set aside the appointment of the petitioner and consequently, the fourth respondent was permanently appointed as Village Assistant in the above said Village. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, which has been subsequently transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition. 3. The District Revenue Officer, erstwhile Nagai Quaid-e-Millet District, first respondent has filed counter affidavit and contended that consequent to the retirement vacancy of Packirisamy, on 30.06.1991, nominations were called for by the Tahsildar, Nannilam Taluk and on 20.06.1991, four persons filed their nominations and after due enquiry, the petitioner was appointed as Village Assistant. 3. The District Revenue Officer, erstwhile Nagai Quaid-e-Millet District, first respondent has filed counter affidavit and contended that consequent to the retirement vacancy of Packirisamy, on 30.06.1991, nominations were called for by the Tahsildar, Nannilam Taluk and on 20.06.1991, four persons filed their nominations and after due enquiry, the petitioner was appointed as Village Assistant. The appeals preferred by one Thiru Thamizhvanan and the fourth respondent herein were rejected by the second respondent and thereafter, on revision, the District Revenue Officer of the erstwhile Nagai Quaid-e-Millet District found that the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent did not own any property. The revisional authority further assessed the inter-se merits of the first respondent as well as the rival contestant fourth respondent and found that as between the two individuals, the fourth respondent was better qualified, belonged to the Most Backward Community and therefore, found him suitable for the post of Village Assistant. The first respondent has further submitted that the selection of the fourth respondent is proper and does not warrant any interference. 4. The fourth respondent has filed counter affidavit and submitted that when the first respondent set aside the earlier orders and appointed him to the post of Village Assistant, he has considered the comparative merit of the contestants and found that the fourth respondent was better qualified than the petitioner, the employment opportunities for the fourth respondent are less compared to that of the petitioner, who was just 22 years. The fourth respondent further submitted that he belongs to Most Backward community, whereas, the petitioner belongs to Backward Community. He has denied the averments that he possessed any cultivating lands or leased out lands. The allegations of the petitioner that the fourth respondent possessed red tiled house and that he would become a Trust Manager in the near future were denied and he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it would be relevant to extract the Rule prescribing qualifications to the post of Village Servant. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Services Rules, 1980 prescribed necessary qualifications and the same is extracted hereunder: "5. Qualifications:- .(1) No persons shall be eligible for appointment to the post of a Village Assistant unless he possess the qualification, specified below, namely:- .(i) Knowledge of reading and writing Tamil; and .(ii) Knows cycling and is physically fit. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Services Rules, 1980 prescribed necessary qualifications and the same is extracted hereunder: "5. Qualifications:- .(1) No persons shall be eligible for appointment to the post of a Village Assistant unless he possess the qualification, specified below, namely:- .(i) Knowledge of reading and writing Tamil; and .(ii) Knows cycling and is physically fit. .(2) The appointing authority shall also take into consideration the following factors, namely:- .(i) Whether the applicant is a resident of the charge Village; .(ii) Whether the applicant is a person belonging to one of the communities included in the list of Backward Classes recognized by the Government of Tamil Nadu; (iii) Whether the applicant is a person belonging to Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes; and .(iv) Whether the applicant is an ex-service man. .(3) In making appointment under these Rules, the appointing authority shall take into consideration the character and antecedents of the applicants." 6. It is evident from the above Rules, the financial position of the rival candidates applying for the post of Village Assistant is not a relevant factor to be to considered, while judging the suitability. All that is stated in the Rules is that the contestant should know to read and write Tamil; that he must know cycling; and physically fit. Further, the appointing authority shall take into consideration the character and antecedents of the applicants while assessing their merits. However, reading of clause (ii) and (iii) of the Rule (5) of the Village Servants Service Rules, 1980 indicate that persons belonging to weaker section of the Society should be given employment, subject to the suitability. 7. In the instant case, the first respondent while assessing the merits of the rival claimants, found that the fourth respondent had studied upto tenth standard and that he was better qualified than the petitioner. As regards the financial position, the fourth respondent has also found that both the candidates do not possess any cultivating land. Sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not conduct an enquiry into the disputed questions of fact as to whether the petitioner and the fourth respondent possessed any cultivating lands. Even otherwise, as per the rule, possessing cultivated lands is not a disqualification for the purpose of appointment. Sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not conduct an enquiry into the disputed questions of fact as to whether the petitioner and the fourth respondent possessed any cultivating lands. Even otherwise, as per the rule, possessing cultivated lands is not a disqualification for the purpose of appointment. One can understand that if a person is affluent and financially sound, he has better chances of employment or other avocation than the other individual, claiming for the post of Village Servant. But possessing a lesser extent of land for subsistence should not be a ground to reject his candidature altogether from seeking employment to a service. If that task is applied, then landless persons alone would be eligible for appointment to the post of Village Assistants. It is further evident from the impugned order that the fourth respondent belongs to Most Backward Community and that he had lost his father 18 years before the date of his appointment. The petitioner was aged 22 years at the time of consideration and the revisional authority has found that he has employment opportunities also. Therefore, on over all consideration of the relevant factors, the first respondent, District Revenue Officer, Nagai Quaid-e-Millet District has considered that the fourth respondent as more suitable than the petitioner and therefore, has rightly appointed him as Village Servant. 8. In view of the above, I do not find that the order of the first respondent suffers any illegality warranting interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.