JUDGMENT Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the impugned order dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure P-6), order dated 30-03-2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case favourable to the petitioner. 2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on the dismissal of the earlier Lambardar namely, Harinder Pattar, post of Lambardar fell vacant in the Village and thus, the process for appointment of the new Lambardar was initiated. The mustri munadi was conducted by the Nuib Tehsildar, Kartarpur in the village for inviting applications from the interested eligible candidates. In pursuance to the same, four applications were received including that of petitioner, Charanjit Singh and respondent No.4-Jaspal Singh. The character antecedents of all the candidates were verified from the concerned police station. On comparison of the inter se merits of all the candidates in the fray, the Naih Tehsildar, Kartaipur recommended the name of respondent No.4 and sent it to Tehsildar, Jalandhar who agreed with the same and sent his recommendation to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar also agreed with the recommendation of Tehsildar Jalandhar and thus, sent his recommendation about respondent No.4 to the Collector. On perusal of the applications filed by the candidates, it was found that petitioner-Charanjit Singh was 35 years of age and 8th class pass. Besides this, he was found to be owner of 18 kanals 02 marlas of cultivable laud. On the other hand, respondent No.4-Jaspal Singh was Found to be 39 years of age and metric pass by qualification. Besides this, he owned 01 kanal 08 marlas of cultivable land. As per the record, he was found to have been prosecuted in FIR No.47 dated 18.03.1999 under Sections 148, 302, 307, 247 IPC at Police Station Dharamkot and HR No.36 dated 03.03.2002 under Sections 323, 160, 148, 140 at Police Station Division No.8 Jalandhar. Learned Collector on evaluating the overall merits and demerits of all the candidates in the fray found that respondent No.4 as per the record was acquitted in FIR No.47 dated 18.03.1989 whereas no record was produced regarding FIR No.36 dated 03.03.2002. Thus, finding the petitioner to be most meritorious and suitable candidate, he appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the Village vide his order dated 20.01.2015. Thus, finding the petitioner to be most meritorious and suitable candidate, he appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the Village vide his order dated 20.01.2015. Being aggrieved, respondent No.4 filed appeal before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar. On hearing both the sides and perusing the record, learned Commissioner not only accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.4 but while setting aside the order passed by the Collector, he appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the Village vide his order dated 30.03.2016. Being aggrieved, petitioner assailed the said order passed by the Commissioner before the learned Financial Commissioner by way of filing the appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Learned Financial Commissioner on hearing both the sides and perusing the record, finding no merit in the appeal flied by the petitioner, dismissed the same and thus, upheld the order passed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 16.07.2018. Hence, being aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that on perusal of the record, it is apparent that petitioner was younger in age than respondent No.4. Besides this, there was no substantial difference between their qualification as petitioner was 8th class pass whereas, respondent No.4 was metric. He submits that it is evident from the record that respondent No.4 had faced criminal prosecution in two FIRs and even though he was acquitted by the trial Court in these two cases but the stigma still remains on his character. He further submits that as per character verification report, petitioner had an impeccable record and thus, he was rightly found to he the most meritorious and suitable candidate by the Collector and hence, was appointed as Lambardar of the Village. If is submitted that learned Commissioner miserably failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the law settled. He submits that learned Commissioner not only illegally set aside the well reasoned order passed by the Collector but he also appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the Village as per his choice which is totally against the law settled. He submits that petitioner assailed this order before the learned Financial Commissioner who again miserably failed lo appreciate the inter se merits of both the candidates on the anvil of the law settled. He submits that petitioner assailed this order before the learned Financial Commissioner who again miserably failed lo appreciate the inter se merits of both the candidates on the anvil of the law settled. He has submitted that learned financial Commissioner assigned no reason of justifying the order passed by the Commissioner. It is submitted that it is an admitted fact that respondent No.4 faced criminal prosecution in two cases whereas petitioner had an impeccable record. It is thus, submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities are totally perverse and deserve to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that on comparison of the inter se merits of both the candidates, it is apparent that respondent No.4 was more educated than the petitioner. He submits that though respondent No.4 was prosecuted in two FIRs as contended by counsel for the petitioner but he was acquitted by the trial Court in both these cases and thus, he earned no disqualification. He submits that learned Collector has rejected the candidature of respondent No.4 on the ground that lie laced criminal prosecution in these two cases however, be failed to appreciate that respondent No.4 was acquitted by the trial Court It is submitted that learned Commissioner rightly found the order passed by the Collector to he perverse and thus, committed no illegality in setting aside the same by appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the Village. He further submits that the appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner. However, learned Financial Commissioner also upheld the order passed by the Commissioner. He thus, submits that the perverse order passed by the learned Collector was rightly set aside by both the Appellate and Revisional Authorities and thus, there being no illegality in passing the impugned orders, the petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. On evaluation of the inter se merits of both the candidates in the fray, it is obvious that there is no substantial difference between their age and qualification. Both the candidates owned lands as well in the Village. However, the main consideration for this Court is the character antecedents of both these candidates. On evaluation of the inter se merits of both the candidates in the fray, it is obvious that there is no substantial difference between their age and qualification. Both the candidates owned lands as well in the Village. However, the main consideration for this Court is the character antecedents of both these candidates. It is an admitted fact from the record that respondent No.4 had faced criminal prosecution in two FIRs i.e. FIR No.47 dated 18.03.1999 under Sections 148, 302, 307, 247 IPC at Police Station Dharamkot and FIR No.36 dated 03.03.2002 under Sections 323, 160, 148, 149 at Police Station Division No.8 Jalandhar. Though as submitted before the Court, respondent No.4 was acquitted by the trial Court in both these cases hut petitioner on the other hand, has neat and clean record as he faced no criminal prosecution at all. Needless to say that Lambardar is the Headman of the Village and as per the provisions of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, his character and reputation in the village is of paramount consideration. Even if respondent No.4 was acquitted by the trial Court, the Collector had to choose the candidate who is most suitable for the post in accordance with law. Thus, the petitioner was rightly appointed as Lambardar of the Village by the learned Collector. However, learned Commissioner set aside this order by observing that respondent No.4 was acquitted by the trial Court. This order was further upheld by learned Financial Commissioner. Both the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have primarily justified the appointment of respondent No.4 on the ground that he was acquitted in the criminal cases against him. However, this Court is not in agreement with the view taken by the learned Commissioner and learned Financial Commissioner. 6. Weighing the merits of both the candidates on the anvil of the law settled, in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner was qualified to be most suitable and meritorious candidate as he was having impeccable record whereas respondent No.4 had faced two trials in two criminal cases and after facing the same, he was acquitted in both these cases. So nothing wrong is found with the choice of the Collector in appointing petitioner as Lambardar of the Village. 7. So nothing wrong is found with the choice of the Collector in appointing petitioner as Lambardar of the Village. 7. As per the law settled, the Collector is the prune authority and choice of the Collector should not he interfered until and unless it suffers from perversity. In Sukhjinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2016 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 725, this Court while dealing with the same question has held as under:- 14. It is pertinent to mention here that the appointment of lambardar is primarily the prerogative and administrative act of the District Collector. The selection made by him ts normally not to he undone unless and until it is shown that the same suffers from gross irregularity, perversity or there is some patent error in the appointment. 8. This Court finds the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner anti order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the financial Commissioner to be illegal and perverse and thus, are set aside. The order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Collector is upheld. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed.