G.S. Sandhawalia J.;— 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.5382 of 2012 on 08.11.2012 whereby the order dated 10.06.2008, appointing respondent No.4, Harpal Singh as Lambardar was upheld and the order of the Financial Commissioner to decide the matter afresh, after considering the claims of the rival candidates, was set aside. 2. The facts of the case go on to show that the dispute pertains to the appointment of Lambardar of the Village Kaonke Tehsil & District Amritsar, which fell vacant on account of death of earlier Lambardar, Gurmukh Singh. Initially, on 10.06.2008, Harpal Singh, being the only candidate, was appointed by the Collector. However, the appellant-Pritam Singh filed review application on 13.07.2010 that the appointment of respondent No.4 was done at his back and proper munadi was not done due to which only one application of Harpal Singh was received and therefore, he was wrongly appointed. The said review application was allowed by the Collector on 19.08.2010 (Annexure P2) and the appellant-Pritam Singh was appointed in place of respondent No.4. An appeal was preferred by the said respondent which was allowed by the Commissioner on 09.02.2012 (Annexure P5) on the ground that the Collector was not competent to review his order. The present appellant had kept quite for more than 30 years inspite of the fact that his father, Gurmukh Singh had died on 06.08.1977, without getting the post filled. The appeal filed by the present appellant before the Financial Commissioner was partly allowed on account of the fact that the merits of the two candidates had not been directly considered. Relevant portion of the order dated 09.02.2012 reads as under: “5. I have considered the rival contentions carefully. Having done so, I find that there has been no proper comparison of the merits of the two candidates by the Collector. There was only one candidate Harpal Singh at the time of Collector's initial order. Similarly, the review application was allowed largely on the ground that Harpal Singh had connived with the lower Revenue Officers to conceal the application submitted by Pritam Singh and hence the latter had been denied an opportunity of being heard. There was only one candidate Harpal Singh at the time of Collector's initial order. Similarly, the review application was allowed largely on the ground that Harpal Singh had connived with the lower Revenue Officers to conceal the application submitted by Pritam Singh and hence the latter had been denied an opportunity of being heard. Though this order does not mention that Pritam Singh was an experienced and appropriate candidate yet the issues now raised against his claim i.e. that he was more than 80 years of age and infirm, that he was totally illiterate, and that he was not a permanent resident of the village but lived in Calcutta, have not been considered by the Collector. The Commissioner's order also suffers from the fact that no cogent reasons have been given in respect of his conclusion that Harpal Singh was the better candidate; and also from the debatable (at the very least) finding that the Collector was not competent to review his own order. 6. This appeal is therefore accepted and the impugned order of the Commissioner is therefore set aside. Further in view of my finding that merits of the two candidates have not been directly considered and compared by the Collector, the orders dated 10.6.08 and 19.8.10 of the Collector are set aside. It is further directed that the Collector may decide the matter afresh after considering the claims of the rival candidates in detail.” 3. Against the said decision, writ petition was filed by respondent No.4 challenging the order dated 19.08.2010 of the Collector, in review, appointing the present appellant and also the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 09.02.2012 whereby the matter was to be decided afresh by the District Collector. The writ petition was allowed by the Learned Single Judge on the ground that the Collector had no power to review the orders passed and the course adopted by the Financial Commissioner was not appropriate. The contention that respondent No.4 was 31 years old whereas the present appellant was 80 years old and only 4th class pass also weighed with the Learned Single Judge and he, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and upheld the order passed by the Collector on 10.06.2008. The contention that respondent No.4 was 31 years old whereas the present appellant was 80 years old and only 4th class pass also weighed with the Learned Single Judge and he, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and upheld the order passed by the Collector on 10.06.2008. Relevant portion of the order reads as under: “Though the Financial Commissioner has only remanded the case but he has failed to appreciate that Collector has no power to review the order passed. The course adopted by the Financial Commissioner is not much appropriate. The counsel for the petitioner has pointed out before me that the petitioner is 31 years old and that is of a young age whereas respondent No. 4 is 80 years old and 4th class pass. Counsel for respondent No. 4, however, submits that the said respondent is hale and hearty and having good health but concedes that he was 75 years old at the time of consideration. Considering these facts and effect that the Collector had appointed the petitioner at the initial stage and had reviewed the said order without any authority of law, it would be futile to remand the case back to the Collector for reconsideration. The petitioner has been appointed and sanad in his favour has already been issued. Considering the old age of respondent No. 4 and lesser educational qualification, he may not be suitable compared to the young and energetic petitioner, who is also satisfying the minimum educational qualification being 8th standard pass. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner, therefore, cannot be upheld and is set aside. The order passed by the Collector appointing the petitioner as Lambardar is upheld. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.” 4. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the reasoning given by the Learned Single Judge is against the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short, the 'Act'), since appointment of Lambardar is made under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909. Accordingly, reference was made to Section 15 of the Act to contend that the Collector being Revenue Officer, is empowered under the Act and there was specific provision for review. 5. Sections 15 of the Act reads as under: “15. Accordingly, reference was made to Section 15 of the Act to contend that the Collector being Revenue Officer, is empowered under the Act and there was specific provision for review. 5. Sections 15 of the Act reads as under: “15. Review by Revenue-officers: - (1) A Revenue-officer may, either of his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm, any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office: Provided as follows: - (a) when a Commissioner or Collector thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, and when a Revenueofficer of a class below that of Collector proposes to review any order whither passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Revenue-officer to whose control he is immediately subject; (b) an application for review of an order shall not be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order, or unless the applicant satisfies the Revenue-officer that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period; (c) an order shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order; (d) an order against which an appeal has been preferred shall not be reviewed. (2) For the purposes of this section, the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue-officer of a lower class who has left the district or has ceased to exercise powers as Revenue-officer, and to whom there is no successor in office. (3) An appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review or confirming on review a previous order. 6. A perusal of the order dated 19.08.2010, passed by the Collector, shows that it was brought to his notice that an application had been filed by the appellant but had not been sent to the Collector alongwith the application of respondent No.4 who had been appointed on the ground that he was the sole applicant. 6. A perusal of the order dated 19.08.2010, passed by the Collector, shows that it was brought to his notice that an application had been filed by the appellant but had not been sent to the Collector alongwith the application of respondent No.4 who had been appointed on the ground that he was the sole applicant. Accordingly, he had allowed the review application and set aside the appointment of respondent No.4 instead of reconsidering the matter afresh and comparing the merits of both the parties after obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner to whose control, he was immediately subject. Thus, in view of the fact that an illegality had been brought to his notice, the Collector rightly reviewed his order, being a Revenue Officer, after giving notice to the opposite side though not following the letter and spirit of the provision. However, instead of reconsidering the matter afresh, on the applications of both the sides, he was biased and appointed the present appellant, without comparing the merits of both the parties, though, being the appointing authority, he was under an obligation to see as to which of the candidates was a better candidate. The Commissioner, without noticing that the power of review is provided under the Act, set aside the order of the Collector and allowed the appeal of respondent No.4. The Financial Commissioner, accordingly, keeping in view the background of both the candidates, considered and set aside the initial orders appointing respondent No.4 and also the order passed in review, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Commissioner dated 09.02.2012. The order of the Financial Commissioner was, thus, well justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled position of law that Collector, being the appointing authority, is to decide the appointment, after taking into account the merits of the parties. 7. It is apparent that there is provision of review under Section 15 of the Act and by virtue of the order of the Learned Single Judge, respondent No.4 benefited by the fact that only his name had been considered on merits whereas it was the specific case of the appellant that his application had not been got forwarded at the behest of respondent No.4 and thus, both the parties had never competed with each other. The order of the Learned Single Judge, thus, cannot be held to be justified as respondent No.4 would actually be benefited, without competing for the post. The reasoning given by the Learned Single judge, thus, cannot be justified. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the directions passed by the Financial Commissioner on 09.02.2012 were valid and there was no basis to set aside the said directions, as has been done by the Learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed, the order dated 08.11.2012, passed by the Learned Single Judge, is set aside and the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 09.02.2012 is restored. The Collector shall decide the matter afresh after considering the claims of the rival candidates, in detail. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Amritsar on 07.10.2013.