JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - C.M. No. 15021 of 2012 Reply taken on record. Application disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No. 22252 of 2011 The applications were invited for appointment to the post of Lambardar of village Chet Singh Wala, District Faridkot. Five persons submitted their applications. Out of five, two candidates did not appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and, accordingly, their applications were not considered. On the basis of recommendation, the Collector appointed respondent No. 3 as Lambardar of the village on 17.05.2011. The petitioner filed appeal against the same, which was dismissed on 20.07.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that his appeal was dismissed without even summoning the record. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition to challenge the order. 2. In response to notice, reply has been filed. The Commissioner while deciding the appeal has not only considered the order passed by the Collector but has observed that there is not much difference between the academic qualification of the parties. The petitioner was found to have studied up to 10+2 class whereas the respondent No. 3 was Matriculate. The name of the respondent had been recommended by the revenue staff and on that basis the choice of Collector had been for the respondent No. 3. The Commissioner found that the order passed by the Collector did not suffer from any perversity or illegality, which would call for interference by him. The Collector, on the other hand, had considered the merits and demerits of all the candidates. He found respondent No. 3 (Mewa Singh) to be more active and intelligent candidate. Therefore, he found that said Mewa Singh had a better claim to perform the duties of Lambardar. In addition to this, it is stated that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 452, 323 and 34 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner concedes this but contends that this is a family dispute. 3. The counsel has referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh versus The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-1), Punjab and others 2001 (1) PLJ 254. This was a case, where the candidate for the post of Lambardar was not considered to be suitable as criminal case was pending against him. This was not held tenable as only the case had been registered and no finding of guilt had been recorded. This was a case, where the candidate for the post of Lambardar was not considered to be suitable as criminal case was pending against him. This was not held tenable as only the case had been registered and no finding of guilt had been recorded. As per the observations made by the Division Bench, no adverse inference could be drawn from mere registration of case. 4. I would respectfully endorse the views expressed by the Division Bench. It may be true that no infirmity or disqualification can be attached due to mere registration of case against the person once he is being considered for appointment to the post of Lambardar. However, this is one of the relevant consideration, which may weigh if other merits are found equal. While comparing the merit, if a person with clean record is available, he certainly can be preferred and the claim of the person, who is having a case registered against him, declined not on that count but taking this into consideration as demerit. The Collector while appointing respondent No. 3 as Lambardar did not view this aspect in any manner and as such this cannot now be taken into consideration to interfere in the impugned order. 5. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.