JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - A post of village Lambardar (General) fell vacant on death of Chander Singh in Village Nizampur, Tehsil and District Panipat. Proclamation was issued. The petitioner alongwith three others applied for being appointed as Lambardar. Two candidates, however, did not come present and finally the petitioner and respondent No.4 remained in the field for appointment as Lambardar. After considering the merits and demerits of the petitioner and respondent No.4, Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the Village on 30.3.2010. Respondent No.4 appealed against this order. The Commissioner dismissed the said appeal on 13.8.2010. Respondent No.4 then challenged the order by filing a revision before the Financial Commissioner. This revision was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Commissioner on 16.11.2010. The Commissioner then reconsidered the issue of transfer of land done in favour of the petitioner through a relinquishment deed on 9.3.2010. The Commissioner then set-aside the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar and instead appointed respondent No.4 in his place. The petitioner filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed. He has accordingly filed the present petition before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would plead that the Collector had rightly exercised his choice by appointing the petitioner. The reason for which the Commissioner has interfered in the choice exercised by the Collector is that on the date of appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar, the petitioner did not have any land on his name and the same was transferred from the name of his father on 9.3.2010 through a registered lease deed. This was during the period when the arguments of the parties were heard on 23.2.2010 and the case was fixed for pronouncement of the order on 30.03.2010. The Commissioner, therefore, observed in his order that on the date of application, the petitioner was not holding any land on his name. This is considered to be an essential qualification, which apparently was not given due consideration by the Collector. On this ground only, the Financial Commissioner had remanded the case to the Commissioner with an observation that the qualification, which was improved during the pendency of the case, should not have been taken cognizance of. This is considered to be an essential qualification, which apparently was not given due consideration by the Collector. On this ground only, the Financial Commissioner had remanded the case to the Commissioner with an observation that the qualification, which was improved during the pendency of the case, should not have been taken cognizance of. The view of the Financial Commissioner would appear justified as the question is not whether this is essential or necessary qualification but whether the petitioner could improve his qualification after submission of his application and whether such qualification would require consideration or was to be ignored. The view taken by the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner would not appear unjustified. This important aspect had escaped consideration of the Collector. 3. The counsel for the petitioner, however, would urge that this would be immaterial and in this regard has relied upon observations made in the case of Inderaj Vs. Financial Commissioner, 1994 (3) RRR 562. In this case, the petitioner under consideration was under a debt on the date of application, which he had cleared on the date of appointment. The Court considered this to be no more a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. Liability of a loan and discharge thereof can not be equated with the requirement of owning a land. 4. Counsel for respondent No.4 has referred to Mahender Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2007(1) L.A.R. 542. The Division Bench in this case was directly considering the point in issue arising in the present case. This was also a case of appointment of a Lambardar and the petitioner therein was not having any land in his name, when the process of appointment of Lambardar has started. During the pendency of proceedings, he got the land transferred on his name through a decree of Civil Court. This Court had held that qualifications of a candidate are supposed to be taken note of at the time when vacancy was notified and not thereafter. The Court also held that holding of a land is essential qualification for becoming a Lambardar of the Village. 5. Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana, provides that extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate to be one of the relevant consideration for appointment as village Headman. The Court also held that holding of a land is essential qualification for becoming a Lambardar of the Village. 5. Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana, provides that extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate to be one of the relevant consideration for appointment as village Headman. The land revenue may have been abolished but property held by the person under consideration is laid down as one of the relevant consideration and has to be kept in view while making such appointments. 6. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and would dismiss the writ petition.