JUDGMENT : - RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. The present writ petition is directed against the orders dated 9.4.2010 (Annexure P-1), 28.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) and 28.7.2011 (Annexure P-4), passed by respondents No. 1 to 3, thereby appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Facts first. Consequent upon the death of late Sh. Gurdasmal Lambardar, one post of Lambardar fell vacant in the village of the parties. Proceedings were initiated to fill the post. The District Collector, Ambala, vide order dated 9.4.2010 (Annexure P-1), appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) and his revision was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure P-4). Feeling aggrieved against the abovesaid impugned orders, 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. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement on behalf of respondent No.4 was filed. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent revenue authorities have miserably failed to apply their judicious mind while appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, who was admittedly more than 75 years of age whereas the petitioner was 48 years old. He further submits that respondent No.4 had retired from army on 30.1.1985, as per Annexure R-4/5. Sarpanch of the village, three Lambardars, six panches of the Gram Panchayat, seven ex member panchayat, three ex Sarpanches and five other respectables of the village have given in writing, vide Annexure P-3, that respondent No.4 used to remain ill, being approximately 78 years' old. He next contended that even if the writing Annexure P-3 is ignored, age of respondent No.4 was not in dispute. This fact is also supported by the army certificates of respondent No.4 himself, which are appended as Annexures R-4/1 to R-4/3 and R-4/5. He next contended that respondent No.4 as well as the petitioner, both were almost equally qualified. However, age being one of the relevant considerations, the respondent authorities committed a patent illegality and perversity, while passing their respective impugned orders, appointing an old person of more than 75 years of age as Lambardar, whereas the petitioner ought to have been preferred, being 48 years old. However, age being one of the relevant considerations, the respondent authorities committed a patent illegality and perversity, while passing their respective impugned orders, appointing an old person of more than 75 years of age as Lambardar, whereas the petitioner ought to have been preferred, being 48 years old. He finally submits that the impugned orders may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that although respondent No.4 was about 75 years of age, yet since he was maintaining good health, the impugned orders were not suffering from any patent illegality or perversity and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at 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 present writ petition deserves to be allowed for the following more than one reasons. It has gone undisputed on record that age of the candidates is one of the relevant considerations while considering them for the post of Lambardar. It is also not disputed that respondent No.4 retired as Subedar from army as far back as on 30.1.1985, as per his own document Annexure R-4/5. In this view of the matter, respondent No.4 is more than 75 years of age and by now he might be about 80 years. Even if respondent No.4 is admitted to be 75 years of age, the respondent revenue authorities have proceeded on patently illegal and perverse approach, while preferring a person of 75 years of age in comparison to the petitioner, who was about 48 years of age. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent authorities have committed serious error of law while appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, because of which, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. While 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) (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. 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” 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. The criterion for appointment to the post of Lambardar, inter-alia, 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” Similarly, this Court in the cases Mohinder Singh Versus Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab and others reported as 2009 (3) PLR 92 and Major Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab reported as 2009 (4) PLR 487, has held that in the cases of appointment of Lambardar, age is one of the valid considerations which is taken into account while appointing the Lambardar. 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. 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. Since none of the respondent revenue authorities has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court while passing their respective impugned orders, the same cannot be sustained. The principle of law that choice of the Collector, in the cases of Lambardar, should not ordinarily be interfered with is not an absolute rule. In the present case, the respondent authorities have failed to record cogent reasons as to why respondent No.4 was being preferred for appointment to the post of Lambardar, although he was 75 years old, particularly when the petitioner was 48 years old and was also fully eligible. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar at the age of 75 years was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Financial Commissioner passed a totally non speaking and cryptic order. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also could not deny this material aspect of the matter that respondent No.4 was more than 75 years of age. In this view of the matter, it is held that impugned orders cannot be sustained, being contrary to the material facts of the case and also having been passed in violation of law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court in CWP No. 22528 of 2011 (Satpal Versus State of Punjab and others) decided on 1.4.2013. No other argument was raised. 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 present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 9.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector, dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division and dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, are hereby ordered to be set aside. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the District Collector, Ambala, to decide the case afresh, keeping in view the observations made here-in-above. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the District Collector, Ambala, to decide the case afresh, keeping in view the observations made here-in-above. The District Collector, Ambala, is directed to decide the case at an early date after granting due opportunity of being heard to the necessary parties, by passing an appropriate order, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.