JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.:- The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Financial Commissioner, thereby upholding the order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and also the order dated 27.7.2006 (Annexure P-1), passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a new post of Scheduled Caste Lambardar was created in the village of the parties. Proceedings were initiated to fill up this post. As many as four candidates applied. Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur, recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar whereas the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hoshiarpur recommended the name of Malkit Singh. After examining the comparative merits of all the four candidates, the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, appointed respondent No.5-Banarasi Dass as Scheduled Caste Lambardar, vide his order dated 27.7.2006 (Annexure P-1). Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-10) and revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P-11). 3. Thus, feeling aggrieved against the above said impugned orders passed by the respondent revenue authorities, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned orders. He further sought a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar of the village in place of respondent No.5. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. 4. Vide order dated 5.12.2011, notice of motion was issued by this Court and operation of the impugned orders Annexures P-1, P- 10 and P-11 was stayed. Pursuant to the notice of motion having been issued, written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the District Collector was suffering from patent illegality and perversity for the reason that respondent No.5 was 62 years of age, as per his own showing vide his affidavit dated 23.5.2006 (Annexure P-9). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the District Collector was suffering from patent illegality and perversity for the reason that respondent No.5 was 62 years of age, as per his own showing vide his affidavit dated 23.5.2006 (Annexure P-9). In spite of this fact, the District Collector committed serious error of law while altogether ignoring this relevant age factor of respondent No.5 while appointing him as Lambardar. He further submits that the resolution dated 21.3.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Gram Panchayat of the village as well as the show cause notice dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure P-7), issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to respondent No.5, for removal of his illegal encroachment on the public path, i.e. phirni, has also not been discussed by the District Collector while appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar. He next contended that the petitioner was about 10 years younger in age than respondent No.5. The petitioner was a graduate whereas respondent No.5 was only a matriculate. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the District Collector while passing the impugned order. The Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner have passed totally non speaking and cryptic orders, while committing serious error of law. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned orders by allowing the present writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that it is the settled principle of law that choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with. She further submits that in the present case, choice of the Collector has been rightly upheld by the Commissioner as well as by the Financial Commissioner. So far as FIR No. 71 dated 23.9.2008 under Sections 307/336/148/149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur was concerned, learned counsel submits that this FIR came to be registered against respondent No.5 during the pendency of the revision of the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner and mere involvement in the FIR will not disqualify him. She concluded by submitting that the impugned orders were based on true facts of the case and the same have also been passed in accordance with law, which deserve to be upheld. She prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. She concluded by submitting that the impugned orders were based on true facts of the case and the same have also been passed in accordance with law, which deserve to be upheld. She prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 8. It is an admitted position on record that respondent No.5 was more than 62 years of age when he was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector and by now he is about 69 years. It is also a matter of record that respondent No.5 has encroached upon a phirni (common path) of the village which was clear from Annexures P-6 and P-7. The relevant operative part of the impugned order dated 27.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, reads as under:- “Candidate Sh. Sat Pal is 52 years of age. His education qualification is B.A. He is agriculturist and keeps buffalos. He remains in the village. Tehsildar Hoshiarpur has recommended his name for the post of Lambardar. Xx xx xx Candidate Sh. Banarassi Dass is 61 years of age. He is 10th class pass. He retired as Asst. Lineman from Punjab State Electricity Board. He is the member of Allowal/Bulhowal Cooperative Agriculture Society. He is a Member Panchayat. The other candidates told that a complaint was pending against him in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Oficer Hoshiarpur-1 regarding the construction of Khurli for animals in the Phirni in the year 2005. Banarassi Dass candidate told that at present there is no encroachment regarding the tie up animals and construction of Khurli in the Phirni.” 9. While deciding the appeal of the petitioner, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, passed a non speaking and cryptic order. No relevant factor was discussed. The relevant part of his order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-10), reads as under:- “I have given my thoughtful consideration to the written arguments of the parties and have also carefully examined the record. While deciding the appeal of the petitioner, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, passed a non speaking and cryptic order. No relevant factor was discussed. The relevant part of his order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-10), reads as under:- “I have given my thoughtful consideration to the written arguments of the parties and have also carefully examined the record. The District Collector, Hoshiarpur, has made his choice in favour of the respondent after evaluating the relative merits and demerits of both these candidates and after hearing them at length. The respondent has no demerits and the choice of the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, is neither perverse nor contrary to rules. The appellant has failed to make out any case. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Announced.” 10. Similarly, the Financial Commissioner also passed non speaking order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P-11) and the relevant part thereof, reads as under:- “I have perused the written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties and also gone through the record and order of the lower revenue courts minutely. I am of the considered view that the District Collector has rightly appointed the respondent as SC Lambardar he being more suitable than the petitioner. I find no perversity in the appointment of respondent as SC Lambardar. His appointment is further confirmed by the Commissioner also. No interference is warranted in the order of the lower revenue courts at this stage. The orders of the lower revenue courts are upheld. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.” 11. A combined reading of the impugned orders would show that relevant consideration about the age of the candidates have neither been discussed nor discarded but altogether illegally ignored by all the three revenue authorities. Further, illegal encroachment made on the public path by respondent No.5, which prima facie stands proved vide Panchayat resolution dated 21.3.2005 (Annexure P-6) and the notice dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure P-7), issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, also speaks volumes against respondent No.5, besides the above said FIR lodged against him. 12. No doubt, it is the settled principle of law that ordinarily choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with. However, it is not an absolute rule, particularly when the orders passed by the District Collector or/and by the higher revenue authorities are found to be suffering from patent illegality or perversity. 13. 12. No doubt, it is the settled principle of law that ordinarily choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with. However, it is not an absolute rule, particularly when the orders passed by the District Collector or/and by the higher revenue authorities are found to be suffering from patent illegality or perversity. 13. In the present case, the petitioner was a mature person of 52 years of age and was graduate whereas respondent No.5 was more than 62 years of age and matriculate. As of now, respondent No.5 would be about 69 years of age. The observations made by the District Collector about the petitioner that he was engaged in his profession, i.e. agriculture including the dairy farming, goes in favour of the petitioner because he would be readily available in the village as and when his services are required by the residents of the village. In addition to the above, the petitioner has also placed on record Annexures P-2 to P-4, which show that he was respectable and responsible citizen. All these aspects of the matter have been altogether ignored by the respondent revenue authorities without making even a passing reference thereof. 14. Considering the age of a candidate as a relevant factor, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Singh Versus Khiali Ram and others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 545] : (2009) (3) SCC 439, observed as under:- “It is now a well-settled principle of law, keeping in view the decisions in regard to the appointment of Lambardar in the State of Punjab, that age of a candidate is a relevant factor. In Lt. Malik Abbas Khan Vs. Ghulam Haidar [1940 Lahore Law Times 25], it was stated: “...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” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the above said law laid down in Mahavir Singh’s case (supra) in the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. Satbir Singh and others, (2009) 9 SCC 392 . The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme in Ishwar Singh’s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under: “The Lambardar is a village headman. His main job is the collection of revenue. He is paid fixed remuneration as well as some commission. Satbir Singh and others, (2009) 9 SCC 392 . The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme in Ishwar Singh’s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under: “The Lambardar is a village headman. His main job is the collection of revenue. He is paid fixed remuneration as well as some commission. The criterion for appointment to the post of Lambardar, interalia, includes educational qualification, age, experience in working of Lambardari, land and property, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness. 7. In Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and others, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 757 : 2009 (1) RAJ 442 : (2009) 3 SCC 439 this Court was concerned with the controversy relating to appointment of Lambardar under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and rules framed thereunder. The court held that with regard to the appointment of a Lambardar in the State of Punjab, age of a candidate is a relevant factor. This court noticed few old cases of Lahore High Court which throw some light on the subject thus : In Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v. Ghulam Haidar (1940 Lah LT 25) it was stated: ... 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. Similarly, this Court in the cases of Mohinder Singh Versus Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab and others reported as, [2009(1) Law Herald (P&H) 696] : 2009 (3) PLR 92 and Major Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab reported as, [2009(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1417] : 2009 (4) PLR 487, held that in the cases of appointment of Lambardar, age is one of the valid considerations. A younger person can perform his duties better as compared to a person of advanced stage. In Major Singh’s case (supra), younger candidate was preferred over and above other candidates, who were 60 years of age. 17. Reverting back to the facts of the present case and respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court, referred to above, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner being about 10 years younger than respondent No.5, was entitled to be preferred. Further, the petitioner was graduate whereas respondent No.5 was matriculate. Further, the petitioner was graduate whereas respondent No.5 was matriculate. In addition to this, respondent No.5 has not placed on record any document to show that he was not in illegal possession over the phirni (public path). 18. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.5 could not point out any relevant material to show whether the notice issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, vide Annexure P-7, was ever replied by respondent No.5. Even if the involvement of respondent No.5 in the criminal case, referred to above, is ignored, still he does not enjoy clean image being in illegal possession over the thoroughfare, causing constant difficulty to the residents of the village. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned orders passed by the respondent revenue authorities are non speaking and are suffering from patent illegality. 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 considered view that present writ petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the District Collector, Hoshiarpur to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, keeping in view of the observations made here-in-above, after granting due opportunity of being heard to the parties. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ————————