JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (Oral):- The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, thereby setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner and restoring the order passed by the Collector appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the death of late Shri Ilias, Lambardar, one post of lambardar fell vacant in the village of the parties. Proceedings were initiated to fill up this post of Lambardar. Seven candidates applied including the petitioner and respondent No.4. Finally, petitioner and respondent No.4 were in the fray. Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Hathin as well as Assistant Collector 1st Grade, recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar. However, the District Collector, Palwal, vide his impugned order dated 7.12.2009, Annexure P-3, appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner Gurgaon Division, who accepted the same remanding the case back to Collector for fresh decision after considering the merits of the candidates, vide his order dated 16.2.2010, Annexure P-4. Respondent No.4 challenged the order of Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner and his revision petition was accepted by the Financial Commissioner while setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner and restoring the order of the Collector, vide order dated 4.5.2011, Annexure P-5. Hence, this writ petition. 3. While issuing notice of motion on 23.8.2011, this Court passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that two F.I.R.s were registered against respondent No.4, therefore, he is not fit to be appointed as Lambardar.” 4. Pursuant to the above-said order passed by this Court, written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.4. A separate short reply was filed by District Collector, Palwal-respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 was more than 60 years of age, whereas age of the petitioner was about 33 years. He further submits that two FIRs including Annexure P-6 were recorded against respondent No.4. He next contended that in view of these two relevant factors, petitioner was much more meritorious candidate than respondent No.4. The order passed by the Collector was suffering from patent illegality and perversity because he has not assigned any reasons, whatsoever, as to why the petitioner was being ignored despite having clear edge on respondent No.4. He next contended that in view of these two relevant factors, petitioner was much more meritorious candidate than respondent No.4. The order passed by the Collector was suffering from patent illegality and perversity because he has not assigned any reasons, whatsoever, as to why the petitioner was being ignored despite having clear edge on respondent No.4. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram & Ors., [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 545] : 2009 (3) SCC 439 and a Division Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and another, 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 350. Finally, he prays for allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned orders. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that although, the operative part of the order passed by the Collector was not a speaking one yet, when the order is read in its entirety, it becomes clear that the Collector has considered the merits of both the candidates. He further submits that the order passed by the Collector was not suffering from any patent illegality or perversity. The Commissioner illegally set aside the order passed by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of the Commissioner restoring the order passed by the Collector. So far as the age and registration of two FIRs against respondent No.4 are concerned, learned counsel submits that although, it was a matter of record yet since respondent No.4 had been acquitted, his involvement in the criminal cases would not disentitle him for appointment to the post of Lambardar. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed, for the following more than one reasons. 8. During the course of hearing, it has not been denied that respondent No.4 has already attained the age of more than 61 years, his year of birth being 1952, as submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.4. Further, his involvement in two FIRs is also a matter of record. 8. During the course of hearing, it has not been denied that respondent No.4 has already attained the age of more than 61 years, his year of birth being 1952, as submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.4. Further, his involvement in two FIRs is also a matter of record. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has rightly submitted that since respondent No.4 has been acquitted, he cannot be held to be disentitled for appointment to the post of Lambardar. However, when another contesting candidate is younger in age, enjoying clean image, was available, respondent No.4 could not have been preferred, in view of the given fact situation of the present case. Further, the order passed by the District Collector appointing respondent No.4 is not supported by any reason as to why he was ignoring the petitioner. 9. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order passed by the District Collector was suffering from patent illegality and perversity for more than one reasons. The order passed by the Collector was non-speaking and without recording any reasons, as to why the petitioner was ignored despite having clear edge on respondent No.4 on account of age as well as clean image whereas, respondent No.4 was found involved in two FIRs. Respondent No.4 made a misleading statement before the authorities claiming himself to be a doctor, whereas he worked only as a nursing assistant. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Collector cannot be sustained. 10. After noting the arguments raised on behalf of both the candidates, District Collector passed his impugned order dated 7.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) and relevant part thereof reads as under:- “After hearing the arguments and study of the facts available in the file of this Court reached on the conclusion that in this case only two candidates Yasin Khan and Manabhar Hussain are in fray for Lambardari. On the basis of evidence the candidate Yasin Khan is more eligible for Lambardari. The S.D.O.(Civil) Hathin recommended the candidate Manabhar Hussain and to which I don’t agree. Considering all the above facts and keeping in view the candidate Yasin Khan more eligible. I appoint him Lambardar. The entire responsibility of revenue will be of Yasin Khan. His name be entered in the revenue and police record and he be given sanad after expiry of period of appeal. The file be consigned to record room.” 11. Considering all the above facts and keeping in view the candidate Yasin Khan more eligible. I appoint him Lambardar. The entire responsibility of revenue will be of Yasin Khan. His name be entered in the revenue and police record and he be given sanad after expiry of period of appeal. The file be consigned to record room.” 11. When the petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner against the above-said order passed by the District Collector, the Commissioner Gurgaon Division, rightly set aside the above-said order passed by the District Collector, vide his order dated 16.2.2010 (Annexure P-4), operative part of which reads as under:- “I have given thought to the arguments advanced by both the Ld. Counsels and have also perused the record on file carefully. The appellant is the son of deceased Lambardar who has been ignored by the Ld. Collector. If the other merits are same then the preference has to be given to the hereditary claim. The order of the Ld. Collector is not a speaking order. The Ld. Collector has not discussed the merits and demerits of the candidates. The appellant has never been a defaulter of electricity department rather he has cleared the dues pending against his father before the appointment of Lambardar. Two criminal cases have been registered against the respondent which speaks about his reputation. The respondent himself claims to be doctor whereas he worked in Army as Nursing Assistant. The appellant is more educated than the respondent. In view of the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the choice of the Ld. Collector is not based on merits of the candidates. The order of the Collector is perverse and not justified, hence the impugned order is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Ld. Collector for considering the merits of the candidates against for filling up the post of Lambardar.” 12. The Financial Commissioner proceeded on an erroneous approach, while ignoring both the material aspects of the matter regarding the age of both the candidates and also the involvement of respondent No.4 in criminal cases. It has been observed that the age factor goes in favour of respondent No.4 but no reason has been assigned in this regard. The Financial Commissioner proceeded on an erroneous approach, while ignoring both the material aspects of the matter regarding the age of both the candidates and also the involvement of respondent No.4 in criminal cases. It has been observed that the age factor goes in favour of respondent No.4 but no reason has been assigned in this regard. It clearly shows that the Financial Commissioner has misread and misunderstood this aspect of the matter because respondent No.4 is more than 61 years of age, whereas the petitioner is about 33 years of age. 13. The Financial Commissioner has further neither discussed nor discarded but has illegally ignored the issue of involvement of respondent No.4 in two criminal cases. To be fair to learned counsel for respondent No.4 in this regard, there is no denying the fact that once respondent No.4 had been acquitted, he cannot be held to be disentitled for consideration for appointment to the post of Lambardar. However, simultaneously, it is also correct that involvement in criminal cases does not go to the credit of respondent No.4. The observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) go against respondent No.4. The relevant observations read as under:- “....We are further of the view that Rule 15 of the Rules would not exclude consideration of a registration of criminal case alleging commission of an offence inter-alia under Section 302 IPC although the appellant-petitioner has been acquitted...” 14. Thus, it is unhesitatingly held that the Collector as well as the Financial Commissioner have failed to record any reason much less cogent reasons thereof in support of their respective impugned orders because of which the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 15. The observations made by Lahore High Court, on the issue of age, in Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v. Ghulam Haidar (1940 Lahore Law Times 25), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, are as under:- “...It is certainly not wise, save in very exceptional circumstances, to appoint for the first time, an inamkhor or zaildar whose age is 60 or more.” 16. Further, the view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh’s case (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that age of a candidate was relevant factor in the cases of appointment to the post of Lambardar. Further, the view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh’s case (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that age of a candidate was relevant factor in the cases of appointment to the post of Lambardar. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held in Mahavir Singh’s case (supra) that other things being equal, a candidate aged 36 years was rightly appointed as Lambardar in preference to a candidate aged 62 years. The facts in Mahavir Singh’s case (supra) were quite similar to the facts of the present case. 17. Respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh’s case (supra) and a Division Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra), this Court is of the considered view that in view of the given fact situation of the present case, it is only the order passed by the Commissioner, which deserves to be upheld. 18. There is no denying the fact that ordinarily choice of the Collector is not to be interferred with, in the cases of appointment of Lambardar. However, it is equally true that this rule is not an absolute one. Whenever the order passed by the Collector is found to be suffering from patent illegality or perversity, the higher revenue authorities would be well within their jurisdiction to upset the order passed by the District Collector. That is what has been done and rightly so by the Commissioner while passing his order dated 16.2.2010 (Annexure P-4). 19. No other argument was raised. 20. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 21. Consequently, the order dated 4.5.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner is set aside. Order dated 16.2.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, remanding the case back to Collector for fresh decision after considering merits of the candidates, is ordered to be restored. 22. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ————————————