JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 12.09.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana whereby revision petition preferred by respondent No.4 – Mani Ram has been accepted and respondent no.4 has been appointed as Lambardar of Village Dongra Jat in place of petitioner – Krishan Kumar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that due to death of Phool Singh, Lambardar of Village Dongra Jat, post of Lambardar fell vacant. After getting permission from the District Collector, Mahendergarh at Narnaul, process for appointment of Lambardar was initiated. The proclamation was made in the village. In pursuance to the proclamation, four candidates, namely, Mani Ram, Karan Singh, Mahender Singh and Krishan Kumar submitted their applications for the said post. After considering the candidatures of the applicants, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Kaniana recommended the name of Mani Ram son of Roop Ram and forwarded his case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mahendergarh, who concurred with the Asstt. Collector 2nd Grade and recommended the name of Mani Ram for the post of Lambardar and sent it to the Collector. The Collector after appreciating the merits of the respective candidates appointed Krishan Kumar – petitioner as Lambardar of Village Dongra Jat vide order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P/3) and observed as under:- “After hearing all the candidates and counsel of Sh. Mani Ram and after going through the facts brought on the record, it has been found that candidate Karan Singh studied upto 5th class and thus he is less educated. A case u/s 323, 324, 148, 149, 506 IPC is pending in the Court against Mahinder Singh candidate. A case u/s 7 of Village Common Lands Act, 1961 is going on against the candidate Mani Ram for having illegal possession over the panchayat land in the Court of Assistant Collector First Grade, Mahindergarh. As per the local Commissioner report dated 07.04.2010, he has got include by taking illegal possession of the panchayat land comprising in khasra no. 79/2 min area 4 marlas in his plot bearing no. 158. As per the local Commissioner report dated 07.04.2010, he has got include by taking illegal possession of the panchayat land comprising in khasra no. 79/2 min area 4 marlas in his plot bearing no. 158. To wriggle out of this, Mani Ram had sworn an affidavit in favour of his brother Ram Narain with regard to transferring half share of plot No. 158 and has tried to show the possession of Ram Narain his brother over the same. Apart from this, he has also got included his brother name in BPL Card. The age of Mani Ram and Mahinder Singh candidates are 64-65 years, whereas Krishan Kumar is 42 years of age and he is young man. He is ex-serviceman and has done his graduation from the Army. The whole family has taken life insurance policy. There is no evidence with regard of having illegal possession over the panchayat land. Therefore, out of all the candidates, Krishan Kumar son of Hardayal, Caste Jat, is suitable candidate and has been appointed lambardar of village Dongra Jat in place of vacancy on account of death of Phool Singh, Lambardar.....” 3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being aggrieved against the order of District College dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P/3), preferred two separate appeals before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon dismissed the appeals vide order dated 09.02.2011 (Annexure P/2). Against that, respondent No.4 – Mani Ram preferred a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The Financial Commissioner allowed the revision vide order dated 12.09.2012 (Annexure P/1) and respondent no.4 – Mani Ram has been appointed as Lambardar in place of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, as well as, orders of District Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. 5. A reference to the relevant Rule 15 of The Punjab Land Revenue Rules as applicable in the State of Haryana (‘Rules’- for short) for appointment of Village Headman, would be beneficial to decide the controversy. The said rule reads as under:- “15. 5. A reference to the relevant Rule 15 of The Punjab Land Revenue Rules as applicable in the State of Haryana (‘Rules’- for short) for appointment of Village Headman, would be beneficial to decide the controversy. The said rule reads as under:- “15. Matters to be considered in first appointments- In all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had among other matters to- (a) his hereditary claims; (b) extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate; (c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; (d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; (e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; (f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India. In case of an ex-headman of an estate or sub-division thereof in the territory now comprising the State of Haryana who had resigned or was dismissed on account of his participation in a national movement before partition and another headman was appointed in his place, the present incumbent of the post shall be removed irrespective of the provisions of rule 16 and the ex-headman would be appointed in his place if he has not rendered himself unfit for appointment for any of the reasons given in Rule 16 except imprisonment for a political offence before 15th August, 1947. In case the ex-headman is no longer alive, a person of his family who would under the Rules have been entitled to be headmen if the resignation or dismissal had not intervened, would be appointed as headman. But when no such person exist there would be no need to remove the existing Lambardar; (g) services rendered by himself to the community and development programmes; (h) he shall be not less than 21 years of age at the time of inviting the application for the appointment of Lambardar; (i) he should be literate, preferably middle pass.” 6. A perusal of the above Rule 15 of the Rules shows that in first appointment of Headman i.e. Lambardar regards shall be had among others to hereditary claims. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner- Krishan Kumar is 42 years of age and is having two acres of land. The petitioner is 10th class pass and is an ex-serviceman and is graduate from Army. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner- Krishan Kumar is 42 years of age and is having two acres of land. The petitioner is 10th class pass and is an ex-serviceman and is graduate from Army. He has got Rs.10.40 lacs deposited in small savings by motivating several persons. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.4 – Mani Ram is 67 years of age and is not able to handle the work of Lambardari. He has encroached upon panchayat land and was involved in getting his brother’s name included in BPL list fraudulently. He further contended that the choice of the Collector is final and cannot be set aside lightly. The Collector has compared the merits of the candidates and thereafter appointed the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Financial Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere in the choice of the Collector. He can only interfere, if the order passed by the Collector is perverse. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments in case of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram & others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 545] : 2009(3) SCC-439, Lila Ram Vs. Asa Ram, 1995 Lahore Law Times-29 as well as judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Phool Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, [2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 962 (DB)] : 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 819. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 vehemently argued that the order of the Financial Commissioner is legal and valid and the Financial Commissioner has recorded finding after appreciating the facts and evidence on record. 9. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered view that the choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly. This view has been affirmed by the Apex Court in case of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram and others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 545] : 2009(3) SCC-439, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the controversy relating to appointment of Lambardar under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and Rules framed thereunder. The Apex Court held that with regard to the appointment of a Lambardar the age of a candidate is a relevant factor. Khiali Ram and others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 545] : 2009(3) SCC-439, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the controversy relating to appointment of Lambardar under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and Rules framed thereunder. The Apex Court held that with regard to the appointment of a Lambardar the age of a candidate is a relevant factor. The Apex Court noticed few old cases of Lahore High Court which throw some light on the subject matter are as under:- “In Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v. 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.” In Kalyan Singh v. Haidar (1928 Lahore Law Times, 33), the Financial Commissioner held that ordinarily the Collector’s choice appointing a Zaildar or Sufedpost should not be interfered with even though the appellate authority believes that his choice was not the best choice. Similar view was expressed in Lila Ram v. Asa Ram (1995 Lahore Law Times, 29) , in the following terms: “…While it is now an established principle that there should be no interference with the choice made by the Collector, it does not follow that where the Collector’s order is based on a misrepresentation of facts, there should still be no interference.” 10. The above view has also been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Phool Kumar’s case (supra). 11. It has been observed that there should be no interference with the choice made by the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar even if two views are possible. It is only the prerogative of the Collector to compare the merits of the candidates for the post of Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner has only limited right to interfere that too when the choice of the Collector is found to be perverse, suffers from material irregularity and it is only then the order of the Collector can be set aside. The Financial Commissioner has not recorded any finding specifically that the finding of the Collector was perverse, rather he has recorded a finding that the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement on compassionate grounds. This finding is not sustainable. The Financial Commissioner has not recorded any finding specifically that the finding of the Collector was perverse, rather he has recorded a finding that the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement on compassionate grounds. This finding is not sustainable. The Collector has categorically recorded that a case under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 is going on against respondent no.4 for having illegal possession over the panchayat land in the Court of Assistant Collector First Grade, Mahendergarh. As per the local commissioner report dated 07.04.2010, respondent no.4 has encroached upon 4 marlas of panchayat land by adding it to his plot. The District Collector further recorded a finding that age of Mani Ram is 64 years, whereas Krishan Kumar-petitioner is 42 years of age and he is youngman. The Collector has appointed Krishan Kumar-petitioner as Lambardar, whereas the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and appointed Mani Ram – respondent no.4 as Lambardar. The order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana is against the settled law that choice of the Collector cannot be interfered lightly. 12. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the considered view that order dated 12.09.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana is not sustainable. The impugned order of Financial Commissioner is hereby set aside and order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector is restored. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————