Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Lambardar on the ground that respondent No. 4 has misled the decision making authorities by providing wrong and misleading information. 2. The petitioner, who is an Ex-serviceman, claims to have participated in 1971 War wherein he received the Medals also. He is also recipient of other medals of excellent service. He claims to be popular in the village and economically sound. The petitioner along with respondent No. 4 and four other persons applied for appointment of Harijan Lambardar. The Collector-respondent No. 3 appointed respondent No. 4, which was impugned by the petitioner by way of appeal and revision. Having remained un-successful, he has filed the present writ petition. 3. Apart from claiming that the petitioner to be meritorious and an Ex- serviceman, the counsel for the petitioner would find fault with the conduct of respondent No. 4 in misleading the authorities about his age etc. while seeking appointment to the post of Lambardar. The counsel has referred to the application given by respondent No. 4 where he has mentioned his age as 45 years, whereas in actual fact he is nearly 70 years old. Referring to Annexure P-4, the counsel contends that respondent No. 4 had applied for old age pension showing his age to be 66 years. In ration card, placed on record as Annexure P-5, the petitioner has shown his age to be 67 years. While appointing respondent No. 4, his age being 45 years was the factor which heavily weighed with the Collector. A view is, thus, possible that if respondent No. 4 had disclosed his age correctly, the Collector would have hesitated in appointing him as a Lambardar. 4. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division declined to interfere in the order only on the ground that no material evidence was led to prove the allegations made in the appeal. The petitioner has placed sufficient material indicating that respondent No. 4 had himself applied for old age pension giving his age to be 66 years. Even the voter list was also shown at the time of arguments to highlight the age of respondent No. 4. The Financial Commissioner declined to interfere on the ground that no new point has been raised. They were expected to see the effect of misleading information provided by respondent No. 4 while seeking appointment as Lambardar. 5. Even the voter list was also shown at the time of arguments to highlight the age of respondent No. 4. The Financial Commissioner declined to interfere on the ground that no new point has been raised. They were expected to see the effect of misleading information provided by respondent No. 4 while seeking appointment as Lambardar. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to Khiali Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 2006(2) PLJ 449 to urge that other qualification being equal to the petitioner was required to be preferred being Ex-serviceman. 6. Counsel representing respondent No. 4 would, however, refer to the contents of the reply to say that respondent had rightly given his age to be 45 years. He, however, has not specifically denied that respondent No. 4 had applied for old age pension giving his age to be 66 years or that in his ration card, Annexure P-5, he has mentioned his age to be 67 years. The counsel has relied on the case of Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR(Civil) 28 to say that the choice of a Collector is final and is not to be disturbed unless it is discloses a lack of jurisdiction or it is perverse in any manner. 7. The appointment of a Lambardar is appointment for village headman. He is expected to be an example for others and assist the administration. If a person, for seeking appointment provides a misleading information, he would set a bad example as a village headman. It cannot be disputed that age is one of the valid consideration, which is taken into account while appointing a village Lambardar. The petitioner has been able to bring on record sufficient material to show that the respondent is much older than the age which he has given in his application. At least, the petitioner has been able to cast sufficient doubt about the age of respondent No. 4. He (respondent No. 4) has not denied documents Annexures P-4 and P-5 in the reply filed by him. He has rather tried to convey that the petitioner is older than the age given by him. Counsel for respondent No. 4 has also referred to Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules to say that respondent No. 4 was Harijan, whereas the petitioner is a Christen to justify his appointment. 8. He has rather tried to convey that the petitioner is older than the age given by him. Counsel for respondent No. 4 has also referred to Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules to say that respondent No. 4 was Harijan, whereas the petitioner is a Christen to justify his appointment. 8. Since respondent No. 4 is seen to have provided misleading information about his age or at any rate there is now a doubt about his age, the matter would require to be considered afresh. A view is possible that if the age of respondent No. 4 is 70 years as alleged, the Collector would certainly have not appointed him as Lambardar at such advanced age. 9. The appointment of respondent No. 4 cannot, therefore, be sustained and is set-aside. The matter will go back to the Collector for holding enquiry to find the age of respondent No. 4. If it is found that respondent No. 4 has given his age wrongly or that he is of the age as mentioned, then he would not be fit to be appointed as Lambardar. In that event, the Collector may consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him in place of respondent No. 4. Since the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are only in contest, they both alone are to be considered for the appointment of Lambardar. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.