Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Lambardar Atma Singh of Santa Patti, Manupur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana died on June 8, 1997. Proclamation was issued in the village on August 21, 1997 inviting applications to fill up the vacant post. There were in all six applicants including Labh Singh, petitioner and Prem Singh respondent No. 3. Out of the six applicants one withdrew his claim in favour of Labh Singh and another candidate withdrew his claim in favour of Kesar Singh son of Atma Singh. Tehsildar recommended the name of Kesar Singh son of Atma Singh. Before Sub Divisional Officer, Kesar Singh son of Charan Singh gave up his claim in favour of Prem Singh respondent No. 3. Therefore, only three candidates remained before the Sub Divisional Officer, who recommended the name of Prem Singh. When the matter came up before the Collector all three namely, Kesar Singh, Prem Singh and Labh Singh were heard, their respective merits were considered and Labh Singh petitioner was found to be most meritorious candidate and he was accordingly appointed on March 31, 1998. Prem Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was accepted and the matter was remanded back to the Collector for a fresh decision. 2. When the Collector again took up the matter after remand he decided in favour of Prem Singh, who was accordingly appointed. It was now Labh Singhs turn to file an appeal. The Commissioner was pleased to accept Labh Singhs appeal and appoint him in preference to Prem Singh. The ball was now in Prem Singhs court. Prem Singh filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who upheld the Commissioner Order on July 19, 2005. Prem Singh filed a review application which was accepted by the Financial Commissioner on January 21, 2008 and Prem Singh was found to be the better candidate in preference to Labh Singh. This is Lab Singhs petition for challenging Prem Singhs appointment as Lambardar. 3. We record with dismay that claims for appointment to the office of Lambardar are subjected to so much litigation and take a lot of time. This is probably because much prestige is attached to the office. Would it not be better if some parameters or guideline are framed and the aspirants for the office are asked to submit a detailed biodata. This is probably because much prestige is attached to the office. Would it not be better if some parameters or guideline are framed and the aspirants for the office are asked to submit a detailed biodata. Some sort of point system should also be evolved to take into consideration factors like age, hereditary claim, education, profession/occupation and social work etc. If guidelines are adopted and rules are amended it would help candidates to file better applications, there would be an element of transparency. The unsuccessful candidate may be dissuaded from perusing the successful candidate through appeals/revisions/reviews. 4. In the present case the appointment process started when the proclamation was issued on August 21, 1997. Six persons applied, formalities were completed by the Tehsildar and name of Kesar Singh was sent to the Sub Division Officer who preferred to recommended Prem Singh to the Collector. The Collector ignored Prem Singh and appointed Labh Singh. Prem Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner who remanded the case back for a fresh decision. The Collector this time preferred Prem Singh and it was Labh Singhs turn to file the appeal which he did successfully and secured the appointment from the Commissioner. Prem Singhs revision before the Financial Commissioner was dismissed. 5. However, Prem Singhs review application was accepted by the Financial Commissioner on January 21, 2008. It would be seen that the present petition would be 9th hearing of the matter. Is it justified to drive prospective candidates for Lambardari through so many litigative steps. If guidelines are clear, the qualifications and disqualifications are also known, the process would be transparent and may not require such a long time to be completed. 6. Novertheless, we find that the three points which had been held against Prem Singh by the Commissioner were that he had been fined in a case of theft of electricity, had been involved in a case under Section 61 of the Excise Act and also remained a defaulter of a bank/cooperative society. The above three disqualifying points, in the opinion of the Commissioner gave Labh Singh an edge over Prem Singh. However, the Financial Commissioner found that Prem Singh was not a defaulter of the bank as he had cleared the loan on May 18, 1996, long before his name was considered for appointment as Lambardar. The above three disqualifying points, in the opinion of the Commissioner gave Labh Singh an edge over Prem Singh. However, the Financial Commissioner found that Prem Singh was not a defaulter of the bank as he had cleared the loan on May 18, 1996, long before his name was considered for appointment as Lambardar. Indeed the vacancy had occurred much late on June 8, 1997 when the earlier lambardar died. Therefore, Prem Singh was not a defaulter on the date of consideration. He was also not involved in any case on that date because he had been acquitted on July 16, 1993. It is sad commentary on the manner in which Prem Singhs appointment was set aside by the Commissioner and Commissioners order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner on wholly non-existent and baseless reasons. We are of the view that the review application filed by Prem Singh had been validly allowed. Orders of the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner had been set aside justifiably. The review order of the Financial Commissioner dated January 21, 2008 is hereby upheld. 7. We find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.