JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik J.:- The present writ petition is directed against the order 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab-respondent No.1, vide which the order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division respondent No.2 was upheld, thereby setting aside the order dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Collector, Jalandhar, who appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. 2. Facts first. Consequent upon the death of Fateh Chand, Lambardar of village Malri, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, one post of Scheduled Caste Lambardar fell vacant. Proceedings were initiated to fill up this post. Many candidates applied. Finally, after closely examining merits and demerits of all the candidates, the District Collector, Jalandhar, vide his order dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P-1), appointed petitioner as Scheduled Caste Lambardar of village Malri, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar. 3. Dissatisfied, three candidates namely Daulat Ram, Baldev Raj and Paramjit Singh respondents No. 3 to 5, respectively, filed their separate appeals before the Commissioner. Appeal of Daulat Ram-respondent No.3 was allowed and order passed by the Collector was set aside, appointing respondent No.3 as Lambardar. Against the order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Commissioner, petitioner filed appeal before the Financial Commissioner, whereas respondents No. 4 and 5 filed their revision petitions. The Financial Commissioner dismissed both the revision petitions and also the appeal filed by the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-3). 4. Feeling aggrieved against the above said orders passed by the Commissioner as well as by the Financial Commissioner, as Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. 5. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed only by respondent No.3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole reason which weighed with respondents No. 1 and 2, to non suit the petitioner was that he was doing some work to earn his livelihood and he may not be available to the residents of the village all the time. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole reason which weighed with respondents No. 1 and 2, to non suit the petitioner was that he was doing some work to earn his livelihood and he may not be available to the residents of the village all the time. He further submits that this reason was first of all factually incorrect, because the petitioner had been working as a Painter and that too not at a distant place but outside the village, which will ensure the availability of the petitioner all the time. He next contended that the Commissioner could not find any patent illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Collector, nor any such observation was made by the Commissioner in his order, while upsetting the choice of the Collector. He submits that the Financial Commissioner also fell into serious error of law while upholding the illegal order passed by the Commissioner. He concluded by submitting that until and unless, the order passed by the Collector was found to be suffering from patent illegality or perversity, it was not within the domain of the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner to set aside the same. Finally, he prays for acceptance of the writ petition, by setting aside the impugned orders. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that owing to the nature of business of the petitioner, he would not be in a position to serve the residents of the village, as and when services of the petitioner would be required. He further submits that if the villagers will not be in a position to avail services of the Lambardar, his appointment will serve no purpose. He finally submits that the writ petition was without any merit and the same be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after going through the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner as well as by the Financial Commissioner are patently illegal and perverse as well, because of which the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The present writ petition deserves to be allowed for more than one following reasons. 9. The present writ petition deserves to be allowed for more than one following reasons. 9. The District Collector, before arriving at a just conclusion, discussed minutely each and every merit and demerit of the candidates. After a comparative study of the merits of the contestants, the District Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner was the most suitable candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The operative part of the order dated 20.3.2008, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar, reads as under:- “In the above mentioned case, the candidates were personally heard and their arguments were considered, candidate Hardev Lal already signed in favour of Daulat Ram. Candidate Daulat Ram is an aged person, his name has been recommended by the SDM, Nakodar. The father of Baldev Raj was Numberdar, this candidate failed in 8th Class. Candidate Paramjit studied up to BA 2nd year, he is a member of the Panchayat and also an acting Sarpanch and paying attention in the panchayat’s work. Candidate Gurdev Singh who is 10th pass, working as an Art Painter is also a social worker and attached with religious activities and is a better candidate for the post of Numberdar, in spite of other candidate. Therefore, Gurdev Singh son of Jeeta is taken to be a suitable candidate for the post of Numberdar and therefore appointed as Scheduled Caste Numberdar of village Malri.” 10. However, while considering the appeal against the above said order passed by the District Collector, the Commissioner did not record any finding to the effect that order passed by the District Collector was suffering from any patent illegality or perversity. The operative part of the impugned order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure P- 2), passed by the Commissioner, reads as under:— “I have considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record received in the case and papers brought on the file. I find that the order of the Collector, Jalandhar, under appeal deserve to be set aside. I find that the appellant Daulat Ram is better candidate for the post of Lambardar. He is agriculturist by profession, matured man and can perform the duties of Lamberdar properly. The other candidates are involved in business/other activities which cannot allow them to perform the duties of Lamberdar effectively. I find that the appellant Daulat Ram is better candidate for the post of Lambardar. He is agriculturist by profession, matured man and can perform the duties of Lamberdar properly. The other candidates are involved in business/other activities which cannot allow them to perform the duties of Lamberdar effectively. Therefore, the appeal of Daulat Ram is accepted and the order of the District Collector, Jalandhar dated 20.3.2008 is set aside and he is appointed as S.C. Lambardar of village Malri, Tehsil Nakodar, Distrcit Jalandhar. The appeals filed by Paramjit and Baldev Raj have no force and the same are hereby dismissed.” 11. Similarly, while deciding the appeal of the petitioner, the Financial Commissioner fell into serious error of law, while not appreciating the settled proposition of law that choice of the Collector should not be interfered with, until and unless the order was found to be suffering from patent illegality, perversity or any jurisdictional error. The Financial Commissioner also did not record any finding to this effect, which is clear from the following operative part of the impugned order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-3). “I perused the record, which is on file and considered the arguments/points advanced by the learned counsels. It came in the knowledge from the perusal of record that Gurdev Singh is working as Painter, therefore, he cannot be available for the villagers whole of time, whereas concern of legacy claim, in that regard, different courts have passed the orders that the benefit of legacy claim can be given if the qualifications of other candidates are similar. Besides this, I am agreeing with the arguments given by the learned counsel of Daulat Ram, that according to the rule 19-B of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, a benefit of legacy claim cannot be given. In these circumstances, I am agreeing with the observations given by the learned Commissioner Jalandhar that after considering the qualification of all other candidates Daulat Ram come in front as good and competent candidate. All other candidates are not able to give full time to the people of the village. In these circumstances, order of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division upheld. Revision petitions have been filed by Paramjit Singh and Baldev Raj and appeal filed by Gurdev have been dismissed. Order has been pronounced in open court today dated 18.12.2009.” 12. All other candidates are not able to give full time to the people of the village. In these circumstances, order of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division upheld. Revision petitions have been filed by Paramjit Singh and Baldev Raj and appeal filed by Gurdev have been dismissed. Order has been pronounced in open court today dated 18.12.2009.” 12. A combined reading of the above said orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2, will make it clear that the settled principle of law that choice of the Collector will not be upset by the Commissioner or by the Financial Commissioner until and unless, the order of the Collector was found to be suffering from patent illegality, perversity or any jurisdictional error, has been violated in the present case. Respondents No.1 and 2 were under legal obligation to point out the patent illegality or perversity in the order of the Collector, while recording their own cogent findings, before upsetting the choice of the Collector. 13. In this view of the matter, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2 are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was working at far away place and will not be physically available, as and when his services are required by the residents of the village. Further, during the course of arguments, when asked as to where the petitioner was working and was that place far away from the village, learned counsel for respondent No.3, had no answer. 14. Everybody is supposed to do some work to earn his livelihood. If the petitioner was an Art Painter, besides being a social worker and attached with religious activities, he was doing nothing wrong. When the merits of the candidates were compared, the petitioner was having clear edge over the private respondents and he was rightly appointed as Scheduled Caste Lambardar by the District Collector. Thus, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2 are patently illegal and the order passed by the District Collector deserves to be restored. 15. No other argument was raised. 16. Thus, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2 are patently illegal and the order passed by the District Collector deserves to be restored. 15. No other argument was raised. 16. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner as well as by the Finance Commissioner are not sustainable in law and the same are hereby ordered to be set aside. The order dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by the District Collector appointing the petitioner as Scheduled Caste Lambardar, is ordered to be restored. 17. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------