JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral):- The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court on 07.05.2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed challenging the order of Financial Commissioner whereby the order of the Commissioner was set aside and that of the Collector restored. 2. After removal of Hukam Singh as Lambardar of village Kammowal, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, the process of filling up of the vacancy was initiated. The appellant and respondent No.4-Sodhi Singh were candidates whose candidature was considered by the Collector. The Collector appointed respondent-Sodhi Singh as Lambardar on 06.06.2006 holding that he is 67 years of age, 7th class pass and owns 16 Kanals of land. He knows four languages i.e. English, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu. His name was duly recommended by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhshankar and he is also son of the deceased-Lambardar. The learned Commissioner set aside that order primarily on the ground that Sodhi Singh is a defaulter of a Cooperative Bank. The said order of the Commissioner dated 09.01.2007 has been set aside by the learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated 25.01.2013 holding that he is the defaulter as the amount outstanding cannot be treated to be the default amount and consequently the choice of the Collector was maintained, while setting aside the order of the Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant is younger in age, little more qualified being 9th class pass, therefore, there is no reason why the appellant is not appointed as Lambardar. The age is an important consideration to be kept in view at the time of appointment of Lambardar. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in the present appeal. No doubt the age is important criteria for appointment of Lambardar but it is not the sole criteria. The languages known, the fact that he owns land and has been discharging the duties of Lambardar are good factors which made the learned Collector to order appointment of Sodhi Singh. Such order has been restored by learned Financial Commissioner and not interfered with by the learned Single Bench. 5. We do not find any error in the orders passed by learned Single Bench dated 7.5.2014 which may warrant interference in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Such order has been restored by learned Financial Commissioner and not interfered with by the learned Single Bench. 5. We do not find any error in the orders passed by learned Single Bench dated 7.5.2014 which may warrant interference in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Dismissed. ------------------