ORDER Jagpal Singh Sandhu, F.C.:- This is a revision petition u/s 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 28.2.2006 passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur regarding appointment of SC lambardar of village Thathal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on creation of a new post of SC Lambardar of village Thathal, the proceedings were initiated to fill it. A proclamation was made in the village for inviting applications from the willing and eligible persons. Six persons including present petitioner and respondent applied for the post. After completing required formalities, Naib Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur recommended the name of Gurdial Chand and forwarded the case to the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur who forwarded the case to the SDM, Hoshiarpur. Candidate Harbilas s/o Pohlo Ram withdrew his name in favour of Hari Dev present petitioner SDM, Hoshiarpur recommend the name of Gurdial Chand s/o Faqir Chand and forwarded the case to District Collector, Hoshiarpur. Candidate Kamal Dev withdrew his name in favour of Ram Parkash present respondent and candidate Ballu Ram withdrew his application in favour of Gurdial Chand before District Collector, Hoshiarpur. Out of remaining three candidates District Collector, Hoshiarpur after considering their merits appointed Ram Parkash as SC lambardar. Against this order, Gurdial Chand and Hari Dev filed two appeals before the Commissioner, Jalandhar who vide his order dated 5.9.2006 upheld the order of District Collector and dismissed both the appeals being bereft of merits Against above order, Hari Dev filed present petition before this court. 3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that his candidate Hari Dev was 44 years of age enjoying good health and was a respectable resident of the village having high qualification i.e. Matric and has also served as a Sakharta Sewak in District Sakharta Samiti, Hoshiarpur. He has a tailoring shop in the village Thathal and was a permanent resident of the village. District Collector ignored his candidature simply on the basis that he was running a tailoring shop in the village Bassi Gulam Hussian which was totally wrong. 4. Counsel further argued that Ram Parkash present respondent was of 57 years of age and only 6th Class pass, running Karyana shop in the village and having no social activities. Respondent was a trouble maker and created groupism in the village. 4. Counsel further argued that Ram Parkash present respondent was of 57 years of age and only 6th Class pass, running Karyana shop in the village and having no social activities. Respondent was a trouble maker and created groupism in the village. Contempt proceedings were pending against him at Hoshiarpur. The District Collector and the Commissioner had wrongly ignored the candidature of Hari Dev who was more meritorious. Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and revision petition be accepted. 5. Counsel for the respondent argued that Ram Parkash was better candidate. He was running his Karyana shop in the village and easily available to the villagers. He was 6th class pass and can read and write Punjabi. He had been appointed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur as well as by the Commissioner, Jalandhar after considering the comparative merits of the Candidates He further argued that choice of the District Collector should not be interfered unless it is proved illegal or perverse. Counsel prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition. 6. I have thoroughly considered the arguments of both the counsel and perused the paper file alongwith the record of Lower Revenue Courts. The District Collector as well as the Commissioner had erred in appointing the respondent Ram Parkash as lambardar of the village whereas the merits of the petitioner had been ignored. The perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner shows that he has failed to appreciate the facts of the case rather he has wrongly stated the facts of the case. He observed; “The respondent is better educated being a matriculate and is also younger in age than both these appellants. The respondent definitely scores over both these appellants……..” But perusal of the record showed that respondent i.e. Ram Parkash was 6th class pass and 57 years of age whereas one respondent i.e. Hari Dev was matriculate and 44 years of age. In the order Hari dev has been shown as M.A. pass whereas another candidate Harbilas was M.A. pass. Missing and mixing all these points showed that the Commissioner has failed to apply his mind judiciously on the facts of this case which led him to pronounce a wrong order. Comparative merits of the petitioner and the respondent shows that petitioner is better educated and younger in age. He has remained a Sakharta Sewak also which showed his tenancy to undertake social responsibility. Comparative merits of the petitioner and the respondent shows that petitioner is better educated and younger in age. He has remained a Sakharta Sewak also which showed his tenancy to undertake social responsibility. The revision petition is accepted and impugned orders are set-aside. Since petitioner is better qualified for the post of Lambardar than the respondent, therefore, he is appointed Lambardar of the village Thathal. Announced. Petition allowed. ——————