Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. Two brothers are fighting hard to get an appointment of Lambardar of a Village on account of the same having been left by their father due to his old age. Bachan Singh, father of the petitioner and respondent No. 4, gave an affidavit that because of his old age, he can not continue as Lambardar and in his place his son, i.e., the petitioner be appointed as Lambardar. It is stated that the petitioner had been helping his father in carrying out duties. 2. The process of appointing the Lambardar was accordingly initiated. Munadi was effected and only the petitioner applied. After the last date of receipt of application, respondent No. 4, brother of the petitioner, also gave an application. Pointing out to the age of respondent No. 4 being 75 years, the petitioner seems to be objecting to the filing of application by his elder brother. Collector ignored the age and has appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. 3. The petitioner thereafter has changed track to urge that this appointment was made without considering that respondent No. 4 had filed the application after the last date fixed. The petitioner then would refer to his merits, saying that he is younger in age being 50 years old and has more land holdings than his brother (respondent No. 4). The petitioner also pleads experience to his advantage as he had been helping his father. Petitioner had, thus, filed appeal before the Commissioner. The main grievance in the appeal was that application by his brother, respondent No. 4, was time barred. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner terms this order to be a nonspeaking one. As per him, this order merely states that the order passed by the Collector can not be interfered with. The petitioner then filed a revision against this order, which is dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 12.3.2008. He is before this Court through the present writ petition. 4. The main Planck of attack against the impugned order is the late receipt of application of respondent No. 4. Plea is that it could not have been entertained. It is briefly disclosed in the writ petition that munadi was effected in the village and the petitioner was the only one who had applied. It is even not mentioned as to what was the last date of the receipt of the applications. Plea is that it could not have been entertained. It is briefly disclosed in the writ petition that munadi was effected in the village and the petitioner was the only one who had applied. It is even not mentioned as to what was the last date of the receipt of the applications. It is then averred that respondent No. 4 gave an application for appointment, when the date had expired. 5. Even in the order passed by the Collector, it is not disclosed as to what was the last date for filing this application and when this application was moved by respondent No. 4. It is, however, mentioned that application of Parshotam Singh (respondent No. 4) was received during the course of hearing by Sub Divisional Magistrate, which he took on record. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had objected to the same. Rather, both the candidates were statedly present before the Collector. The objection regarding late receipt of application by respondent No. 4 apparently was not raised before the Collector as it is no where noticed in the order passed by the Collector. Sub Divisional Magistrate had recommended the name of the petitioner and perhaps he was expecting his appointment. Being eager to have early appointment, the petitioner apparently did not raise objection about the late receipt of application of respondent No. 4. He appears to have been taken by surprise, when Collector decided to appointment respondent No. 4 as Lambardar, finding him more meritorious. The Collector appointed respondent No. 4, he being the elder son of deceased Lambardar (the father had died in the meanwhile). The Collector also noticed some misstatement made by the petitioner. As per the revenue records, the petitioner was having land measuring 30 kanals but during arguments, he claimed to be owner of 6 acres. Respondent No. 4 was found to have correctly stated about his land holdings. The petitioner mentioned his education qualification to be upto 7th standard but he was found to be illiterate. Respondent No. 4 apparently did not make any such claim. The Collector noticed that though respondent No. 4 may be an illiterate but he is a far sighted person. He accordingly appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. 6. The plea regarding late submission of application was pressed before the Commissioner. Respondent No. 4 apparently did not make any such claim. The Collector noticed that though respondent No. 4 may be an illiterate but he is a far sighted person. He accordingly appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. 6. The plea regarding late submission of application was pressed before the Commissioner. Before the Commissioner, the petitioner had admitted to have made wrong statement in his memo of appeal. On behalf of respondent No. 4, it was pointed out that no proper proclamation was effected in the village and on coming to know about the proceedings to appoint Lambardar, respondent No. 4 submitted his application to the Collector, who then referred the same to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Respondent No. 4 submitted that plea of late filing of application was raised at the appellate stage and as such, it could not be validly considered. Thus, the plea was reiterated before the Financial Commissioner. Financial Commissioner further observed that since there was only one application received after munadi, the Collector was justified in entertaining the application of respondent No. 4 to have a wider choice. He accordingly dismissed the revision. 7. The petitioner did not raise any objection before the Collector considering respondent No. 4 for the appointment on the ground that his application was late. The petitioner as such, could not validly raise this plea for the first time before the appellate authority. The Commissioner was justified in not giving much weight to this and rightly upheld the appointment of respondent No. 4, he being a better choice as compared to the petitioner. Nothing much can be said to the credit of the petitioner, who was found to have made misleading or wrong statements. The petitioner apparently wanted to have a field day for himself by being the sole applicant and that is why he is seriously contesting the appointment of his own elder brother as Lambardar. It was observed that munadi was not done properly in the village but still none other than respondent No. 4 has come forward to stake a claim for appointment. The sole ground pursued by the petitioner to challenge this appointment is late receipt of application, which he did not plead before the Collector. It was observed that munadi was not done properly in the village but still none other than respondent No. 4 has come forward to stake a claim for appointment. The sole ground pursued by the petitioner to challenge this appointment is late receipt of application, which he did not plead before the Collector. Since this ground was raised before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, it would have been appropriate for them to consider whether the petitioner could have been allowed to raise this plea in the manner when he failed to so plead before the Collector. The petitioner seems to have taken a chance, when he failed to get appointed, he has come up with this plea to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 4. A ground, which is not raised before the Collector, who is the appointing authority in this case, can not ordinarily be permitted to be raised at the appellate or subsequent stage. This plea of the petitioner has been rightly ignored. There is, thus, no infirmity on the part of the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner in declining to interfere in the impugned order on the ground of late receipt of application by respondent No. 4. The view taken by the authorities is fair, just and reasonable. Rather, the conduct of the petitioner was found to be infirm as he had tried to provide misleading information about his merits. It is, thus, not a fit case to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court in this case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.