ORDER 1. This appeal u/s 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 11887 has been filed against order dated 19-5-2014 passed by Commissioner Jalandhar Division in the matter of appointment of Lambardar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the death of Sh. Piara Singh, Lambardar of village Daroli Kalan (Patti Jagirpur), Tehsil and District Jalandhar, proceedings were initiated to fill up the vacancy and accordingly proclamation was made in the village inviting applications from the interested candidates. As a result only two persons i.e. present appellant and respondent applied. The District Collector, after hearing both the candidates and evaluating their comparative merits appointed Kulwinder Singh as new Lambardar of the village vide his order dated 16-12-2010. The District Collector in his order observed that although Jagjit Singh is more educated than Kulwinder Singh, he being a Commission Agent in Bank/Post office, remains busy in his work; whereas Kulwinder Singh is Member Panchayat, Member of School Committee and of Co-operative Society and he also participates in social service. Aggrieved with the order of District Collector, Jagjit Singh filed an appeal before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, who vide order dated 19-5-2014 accepted the same and appointed Jagjit Singh as new Lambardar of the village on the grounds that he was more educated and owns more land as compared to Kulwinder Singh and he being ex-serviceman should be given preference, when all other merits are equal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Arguments of counsel of both the parties were heard on 24-2-15. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned order is bad because it has set aside the Collector’s order by substituting the judgement of the Collector as regards the relative merits of the candidates. This is against the settled principle of law that a Collector’s appointment order should not be interfered with lightly since the appointing authority is best placed to judge all the merits of candidates. Further, the impugned order of the Commissioner in para 5 is self-contradictory since it first states that both the candidates are equal in merits, however, it goes on to state that the present respondent is more educated and owns more land. 4. Counsel for respondent has argued that the Commissioner correctly gave due weightage to the fact that he was an ex-serviceman. 4. Counsel for respondent has argued that the Commissioner correctly gave due weightage to the fact that he was an ex-serviceman. In this regard he has cited the judgement of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jagjit Singh v. State, 2011 (2) LAR 118, in which it was held as follows:- “We concur with the reasoning, given by the Financial Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge that an Ex-Serviceman should be given preference vis-a-vis the other candidate in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, particularly when the post is reserved for the Scheduled Caste community.” 5. As regards the correctness of the impugned order counsel has cited in support a judgement of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Samai Singh v. State of Haryana, 2011 (3) LAR 406, in which it was held as follows:- “Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the appellate forum i.e. Commissioner did not commit any illegality in interfering with the order passed by Collector. Considering the comparative merit, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was not appropriate for the Financial Commissioner to ignore the consideration of comparative merit of the applicants by the appellate forum i.e. the Commissioner. High education, Ex-Army status, conviction and land holding are relevant criteria to be taken into account. If this is not done, it shall be failure on the part of the appellate authority in exercising its appellate powers.” 6. Further, as regards Collector’s observation that respondent was employed and therefore not available for duties of lambardar, counsel has cited judgement of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Amarjit Kaur v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 2011 (3) LAR 89 wherein it was held that:- “...in the opinion of this Court, Lambardar cannot be expected to be an unemployed or merely engaged in agricultural activities. Merely, because, Lambardar is running a school in the nearby city, cannot be a basis to create doubt that in future she would not be available in the village to discharge duties of Lambardar...” 7. I have perused the record of the case. It is settled law that in the appointment of lambardar the Collector’s order may be disturbed only on the grounds illegality or perversity. The Commissioner has based his selection on the ground that when all other merits of candidates are equal, then an ex-serviceman should be preferred. I have perused the record of the case. It is settled law that in the appointment of lambardar the Collector’s order may be disturbed only on the grounds illegality or perversity. The Commissioner has based his selection on the ground that when all other merits of candidates are equal, then an ex-serviceman should be preferred. However, a reading of the Collector’s order shows that he has gone into all the circumstances and merits pertaining to these candidates; he has considered the fact that present respondent was an ex-serviceman; and arrived at an overall finding in favour of petitioner, by way of a speaking order. In the present case the Commissioner has set aside the Collector’s order only on grounds of relative merits of candidates; by substituting his own judgement for that of the Collector. By doing so the Commissioner has clearly gone beyond his jurisdiction as an appellate authority. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the Collector’s order is restored. Announced. ————————