JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No.4010 of 2012 Heard. For reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. No.4011 of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. LPA No.1518 of 2012 1. The appellant, prays that order dated 26.7.2012, dismissing his writ petition and orders passed by the Financial Commissioner and the Collector, may be set aside. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that as respondent No.4 has converted to Christianity and has misused funds received from Christian organizations, to convert persons to Christianity, he is not a fit person to be appointed as Lambardar. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 was not a resident of village Jajanpur on the date of appointment and even otherwise, as respondent No.4 has been collecting Rs.250/- from each person for attesting documents etc., the appeal may be allowed. 3. We have heard counsel for the appellant and are shocked at the argument that as respondent No.4 has converted to Christianity or is a Christian, he cannot be appointed as a Lambardar. Article 14 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be differentiated on account of his religion. A candidate for Lambardar cannot be appointed or rejected on the ground that he belongs to a particular religion or has converted to another religion. 4. The appellant’s other contention that respondent No.4 is misusing funds received from missionary for converting Hindus to Christianity, is a figment of the appellant’s fertile imagination and merits summary rejection. Even otherwise, no such plea was raised either before the Collector or before the Financial Commissioner. Another argument that respondent No.4 is not a resident of the village, remains unsubstantiated for want of reference to any material, much less, any document that was produced before the Collector or any other revenue authority. The argument that the respondent No.4 is charging money for attesting documents, is entirely irrelevant while considering his appointment to the post of Lambardar as it is a post-facto event which may, at best be a ground for his removal from the post of Lambardar. 5. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed.