JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of death of Harbans Lal son of Hira Lal, the post of Lambardar of village Pharaya Mal Wala, Tehsil & Distt.Ferozepur, had fallen vacant. Ultimately, five candidates, namely, Baldev Raj son of Harbans Lal (petitioner), Bakshish Singh son of Bhan Singh (respondent No.3), Harjit Singh son of Kartar Singh (respondent No.4), Baldev Singh son of Buta Singh (respondent No.5) and Kuldeep Raj son of Harbans Lal (respondent No.6) applied and lodged their respective claims for the indicated post of Lambardar. 2. Having considered the respective merits and de-merits of the candidates and after following the due procedure, as contemplated under the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the relevant Rules”), the District Collector, Ferozepur (respondent No.2) appointed Bakshish Singh (respondent No.3) on the post of Lambardar, by virtue of impugned order dated 3.11.2010 (Annexure P1). 3. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P1), petitioner Baldev Raj filed appeal No.1 of 2011, whereas Harjit Singh son of Jaswant Singh filed another appeal No.84 of 2010, which were dismissed as well, by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division (respondent No.1), by way of impugned order dated 19.4.2011 (Annexure P2). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders and preferred the instant writ petition, invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that the petitioner is more meritorious candidate than respondent No.3 and since the District Collector and the Commissioner have wrongly ignored his (petitioner) claim, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 & P2) deserve to be set aside, sans merit. 7. As is evident from the record that, the fields officers have recommended the name of respondent No.3 for appointment as a Lambardar. He is a young man of 40 years, 5th class passed, can read & write Punjabi. 7. As is evident from the record that, the fields officers have recommended the name of respondent No.3 for appointment as a Lambardar. He is a young man of 40 years, 5th class passed, can read & write Punjabi. He is owner of land measuring 52 kanals 17 marlas and he has clean record in this respect. On the contrary, it is not a matter of dispute that a criminal case was registered against petitioner Baldev Raj and his brother Kuldeep Raj (respondent No.6) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC, vide FIR No.216 dated 1.10.2009. 8. The celebrated submission of learned counsel that as the police has recommended for cancellation of the case, therefore, it cannot be considered his demerit, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted) that the investigating agency has recommended the case for cancellation, but the fact remains is that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for committing the heinous offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery etc., by means of indicated FIR. The mere fact that the police has recommended the cancellation of the case, ipso facto, is no ground to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar. 9. Moreover, the Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar. The appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector, being In-charge of the Administration. It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such persons in the office of Lambardar, who are eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates. The choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. 10. Having considered the pros and cons of the candidature of candidates and after following the due procedure, as envisaged under the provisions of the Act and the relevant Rules, the District Collector, (respondent No.2) appointed Bakshish Singh (respondent No.3) on the post of Lambardar, vide impugned order (Annexure P1). 10. Having considered the pros and cons of the candidature of candidates and after following the due procedure, as envisaged under the provisions of the Act and the relevant Rules, the District Collector, (respondent No.2) appointed Bakshish Singh (respondent No.3) on the post of Lambardar, vide impugned order (Annexure P1). Not only that, the order/choice of the District Collector was confirmed by the Commissioner, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P2), which, in substance, is (para 4) as under:- “4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The impugned order of the District Collector, Ferozepur reveals that a case FIR No.216 dated 1.10.2009 under sections 420/465/467/471/120-B IPC was registered against Baldev Raj appellant, but he did not produce any order regarding cancellation of the said case. Further, exparte proceedings were taken against Harjit Singh, appellant, at the lower level and an order dated 03.03.2010 was passed by the District Collector, Ferozepur, that he cannot be considered for appointment as Lambardar of village. Harjit Singh appellant, did not file any appeal against the order dated 03.03.2010, and as such his name was not considered for appointment of Lambardar of the village. The Collector in his impugned order has also mentioned that there is no boundary of the Patti. Bakshish Singh respondent No.1, is resident of village Pharaya Mal Wala. He resides in his fields. According to the report of the SDM, Ferozepur, the Lambardari case does not relate to any particular Patti. Bakshish Singh respondent No.1, is aged about 40 years, owns 52 Kanals 17 Marlas of land, and has passed 5th class. His name was also recommended by Naib Tehsildar as well as by the SDM, Ferozepur. The learned District Collector, Ferozepur, therefore, vide his order dated 3.11.2010, rightly appointed Bakshish Singh, respondent No.1 as Lambardar of village Pharaya Mal Wala, Tehsil & District Ferozepur. It is well settled law that the choice of the District Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar should not be interfered with unless the impugned order is illegal or perverse in nature. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the District Collector, Ferozepur. I, therefore, dismiss both the appeals. A copy of this order be placed on each file.” 11. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the District Collector, Ferozepur. I, therefore, dismiss both the appeals. A copy of this order be placed on each file.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders of the Distt. Collector (Annexure P1) and Commissioner (Annexure P2) are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 12. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned orders. All other celebrated arguments, now sought to be urged on his behalf in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the authorities below. 13. Meaning thereby, the District Collector and Commissioner have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 & P2) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 15. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. ------------------