Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. On February 11, 2009, the case was adjourned to enable the respondents to file reply. The adjournment was granted subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- as costs. No one appeared before Registrar (Judicial) either to file reply or to deposit the costs. Registrar accordingly placed this case before the Court. No one appears to represent respondent No. 4, who is the affected party, being appointed Lambardar, which is under challenge. Respondent No. 4, however, is present in person and prays for grant of some more time as he was not informed by his counsel about the costs and filing of the reply. This prayer is vehemently opposed by counsel for the petitioner. The prayer made respondent No. 4 is, thus, declined. The parties are heard on merits. 2. The appointment relates to Harijan Lambardar of village Hukran, District Hoshiarpur. 11 candidates initially applied but only two remained for consideration, i.e., the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Considering the relative merits, the Collector appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar on 10.10.2001. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same. The plea was that respondent No. 4 had made wrong/misleading statement that he owned 8 acres of land. It is stated that there was no land in his name in the village. Respondent No.4 was also accused of misappropriating Panchayat funds and damaging the property. The Commissioner remanded the case back to the Collector for conducting enquiry to see if respondent No. 4 was having 8 acres land or not. 3. Respondent No. 4 challenged this order before Financial Commissioner, Punjab, who dismissed the revision on 29.5.2003. The Collector had then got an enquiry conducted to find out if respondent No. 4 had any landed property or not. The Collector, however, observed that land holding may not be a pre- requisite to appoint a person as scheduled caste Lambardar, but this fact was to be seen to test credibility of the candidate concerned. Collector accordingly appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 27.5.2004. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against the same before the Commissioner, who reversed the order of the Collector and appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on 26.9.2007. 4. Collector accordingly appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 27.5.2004. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against the same before the Commissioner, who reversed the order of the Collector and appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on 26.9.2007. 4. What appears to have weighed with the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner to accept the plea of respondent No. 4 is the fact that the petitioner had remained in jail for 8 months for breach of peace. This fact is seriously disputed by the counsel for the petitioner, who points out that respondent No. 4 had produced no material in support of this allegation made against the petitioner. 5. While issuing notice of motion, the submission made by the counsel in this regard was recorded to the effect that the petitioner had never remained in jail for 3 months in 1998. The Financial Commissioner had, as per the petitioner, wrongly recorded that he was in jail for 8 months. Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 4 has not intentionally filed reply as he has no proof to show in this regard. 6. The fact that the petitioner had not remained in jail or that he did not suffer any other disqualification was required to be pleaded and established before the authorities concerned before whom it was raised. The petitioner could not refute this fact when the same was raised before the Commissioner. It is specifically recorded by the Commissioner that the petitioner had failed to repudiate the contention of respondent No.4 that the petitioner is 70 years old and had remained in jail for 3 months in 1998. It is not understood as to why the petitioner was not so vehement in denying the same before the Commissioner. The age factor of the petitioner, he being 70 years old, has till date not been refuted. Apparently, the petitioner could not seriously refute the fact of his having remained in jail for committing offence of breach of peace. The Financial Commissioner while passing the impugned order has not given much weightage to this aspect. He otherwise found and rightly so that name of respondent No.4 was recommended by Assistant Collector and he was appointed by the Collector on 10.10.2001. Respondent No.4 had remained Sarpanch of the village from 1993 to 2003 and Panch from 1987 to 1993. The Financial Commissioner while passing the impugned order has not given much weightage to this aspect. He otherwise found and rightly so that name of respondent No.4 was recommended by Assistant Collector and he was appointed by the Collector on 10.10.2001. Respondent No.4 had remained Sarpanch of the village from 1993 to 2003 and Panch from 1987 to 1993. It was noticed that Respondent No. 4 permanently resided in the village and took interest in the welfare of the village where he was always remained available in the village for providing help to the people. The Financial Commissioner accordingly held that he did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. Thus, respondent No. 4 was otherwise found meritorious even by ignoring the fact of the petitioner having remained in jail. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.