JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The post of Lambardar (B.C. Category) of village Badhi Majra, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, fell vacant after the death of Jarnail Singh. 3 applications were received to fill up the vacant post. Tehsildar recommended the name of the petitioner but SDO(C), Jagadhri, recommended the name of respondent no.4. The Collector, however, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village vide his order dated 25.07.2006. Respondent no.4 challenged the order of the Collector by way of appeal which was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner on 14.08.2007. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner was allowed on 22.01.2008 and the case was remanded back to the Collector with a direction that if none of the candidate is found suitable, then fresh applications will have to be invited. 2. After remand, the Collector, vide his order dated 15.07.2009, again appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. Respondent no.4 filed appeal to the Divisional Commissioner which was allowed on 30.09.2009 and the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner was dismissed on 17.03.2010. The petitioner has, thus, filed the present petition being aggrieved against the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been chosen twice by the Collector for the post of Lambardar but his appointment has been set aside only on the ground that respondent no.4 is B.A. pass, whereas the petitioner has studied upto 7th class. It is alleged that the petitioner owns 4 Kanals 10 Marlas land in the village and also owns Aatta Chakkicum- shop and is available to the villagers as well as the revenue officers, whereas respondent no.4 does not own any property in the village who is otherwise a taxi driver by profession and would hardly be available in the village in the time of need. It is also argued that the petitioner has taken active part in the development programme of the village and himself got deposited an amount of Rs.1 lac under the small saving scheme and motivated 7 family planning cases, whereas respondent no.4 did not deposit a single penny under the small saving scheme and his efforts in getting Rs.15 lacs deposited under the small saving scheme has been taken into consideration while the amount of Rs.18 lacs got deposited by the petitioner from other inhabitants of the village under small saving scheme has not been discussed. It is further submitted that the Collector, while passing the order, specifically mentioned that the petitioner has read the Hindi material in a satisfactory manner and his literacy level was up to the mark and for that matter, his appointment has been wrongly set aside on the ground that respondent no.4 is a graduate. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.4 has submitted that there is no evidence on record that the petitioner is 7th class pass and it is provided in Rule 15(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1887 (applicable to Haryana) that a candidate contesting for the post of Lambardar will be literate preferably middle class pass. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, I have found that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent no.4 especially when he is working in the village and being a shopkeeper he is available to both the villagers as well as the revenue officers, whereas respondent no.4 is a taxi driver who would not be available in the village. Though in the reply filed by respondent no.4, it has been alleged that he is not a taxi driver but he did not disclose his profession. Moreover, the Collector who is the appointing authority, even after remand, has consistently chosen the petitioner as a suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar of the village after having been satisfied with his level of literacy as he was asked to read Hindi material before him. Moreover, the Collector who is the appointing authority, even after remand, has consistently chosen the petitioner as a suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar of the village after having been satisfied with his level of literacy as he was asked to read Hindi material before him. In these circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the order of the Collector because the Commissioner has wrongly recorded that the Collector has not given any opinion regarding the reading and writing ability of the petitioner and the Financial Commissioner has upset the choice of the Collector on the ground that respondent no.4 is better qualified and young. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is hereby allowed, impugned orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are set aside and consistent choice of the Collector regarding appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of the village is hereby maintained.