JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.(Oral):- The short but important issue that falls for consideration of this Court is whether a man of 80 years should be considered for appointment to the post of Lambardar. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 4.10.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab whereby the order dated 25.7.2011 ( Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, was set aside, restoring the order dated 25.2.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Collector, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the death of late Sh. Sucha Singh, one post of Lambardar fell vacant in the village of the parties. Proceedings were initiated to fill up this post. Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate recommended the name of respondent No.5 for appointment to the post of the Lambardar. After evaluating comparative merits of the candidates, the District Collector, vide his order dated 25.2.2010, appointed Jaswinder Singh-respondent No.5 as Lambardar. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner which was allowed appointing the petitioner as Lambardar, vide order 25.7.2011 (Annexure P-4). The order passed by the Commissioner was challenged by respondent No.5 before the Financial Commissioner, who allowed the appeal of respondent No.5 by passing impugned order dated 4.10.2012 (Annexure P-5), vide which order passed by the Commissioner was set aside and the order passed by the District Collector was restored. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Commissioner was factually correct and legally justified. The Financial Commissioner should not have interfered with order of the Commissioner. He further submits that impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner was contrary to the facts of the case and also against the relevant provisions of law. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned order allowing the present writ petition. 6. The Financial Commissioner should not have interfered with order of the Commissioner. He further submits that impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner was contrary to the facts of the case and also against the relevant provisions of law. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned order allowing the present writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present one is not a fit case for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, for the following more than one reasons. 7. It is undisputed on record that at the time of submitting his application, the petitioner was 80 years of age, who would be now more than 83 years of age. Petitioner claims himself to be 7th pass and was having 5 acres of land. On the other hand, respondent No.5 was 46 years of age. He was 8th pass and having 5 acres of land. The District Collector found him as a social worker. He was a member of the sports club. Besides this, respondent No.5 was a member of education trust of the village and was also a member of PASWAK committee of school. Thus, considering the above said merits of the candidates, respondent No.5 was appointed by the Collector. 8. A bare perusal of the order passed by the District Collector would show that he came to the right conclusion preferring respondent No.5 over and above the petitioner. The petitioner was more than 80 years of age. Age being one of the relevant factors for appointment to the post of Lambardar, the District Collector committed no error of law while appointing respondent No.5. 9. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, proceeded on a misconceived and perverse approach, while observing that age was no bar in the cases of appointment of Lambardars. He acted beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. The order passed by the Commissioner was rightly set aside by the Financial Commissioner. He acted beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. The order passed by the Commissioner was rightly set aside by the Financial Commissioner. The operative part of the impugned order (Annexure P-5), reads as under:- “I have gone through the arguments put forth by counsel for the petitioner and written arguments filed by the counsel for the respondent, orders of lower court and record brought on file. The Collector has appointed Jaswinder Singh after appreciating merits of all the 3 candidates. Jaswinder Singh is 46 years of age, studied upto 8th class. He is a permanent resident of the village, owner of 5 acres of land and also participant in social welfare activities of the village. His name has been recommended by the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr whereas the respondent Harbhajan Singh though owner of 5 acres of land and resides in the village but no extra social welfare activities have been attributed to him. His name is not recommended by the lower revenue authorities. Though the Collector is not bound by the recommendations of the lower revenue authorities but due consideration is required to be given to these recommendations. Comparison of the merits of the candidates and recommendation by the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Magistrate put Jaswinder Singh in a better position. The Commissioner while accepting the appeal of Harbhajan Singh has added that he knew Urdu which is additional qualification but he has failed to point out any irregularity or perversity in the order of the Collector. It is settled law that choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with unless it suffers from the irregularity, perversity or there is some patent error in his appointment. The Commissioner has failed to point out any irregularity or perversity in the order. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and order of the Collector is upheld. 10. A bare perusal of the above said impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner would show that he re-considered and appreciated the comparative merits of both the candidates. Respondent No.5 was found having clear edge over the petitioner. Name of respondent No.5 has been recommended by the Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate and thereafter, he was appointed by the District Collector. Respondent No.5 was found having clear edge over the petitioner. Name of respondent No.5 has been recommended by the Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate and thereafter, he was appointed by the District Collector. Thus, no illegality can be attached to the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and the same deserves to be upheld. 11. The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharvir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 757. “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” 12. The above said view was again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. Satbir Singh and others, (2009) 9 SCC 392 . 13. Respectfully following the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in view of age of the petitioner which is not less than 83 years, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that respondent No.5 has been rightly appointed as Lambardar. The orders passed by the District Collector as well as the Financial Commissioner have not been found to be suffering from any patent illegality or perversity. 14. Further, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order, passed by the Financial Commissioner, which is sine qua non for interference by this Court, in the cases of this nature. 15. No other argument was raised. 16. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, it is unhesitatingly held that the present writ petition is bereft of any merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference is made out. 17. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------ ————————