JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.8.2004 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, setting aside the order dated 27.7.2001 passed by the Commissioner appointing the petitioner as Lambardar of the village, and restoring the order dated 10.9.1997 passed by the Collector vide which Baldev Singh-respondent No. 3 was appointed as Lambardar of the village.
2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the aforesaid orders passed by the authorities.
3. In this case, one post of Lambardar became vacant in village Dabhali Kalan after the death of Niranjan Singh, Lambardar. Applications were invited for the said post. Only two persons i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 3 submitted their applications which were processed accordingly. The Collector, who was the appointing authority for the post of Lambardar, appointed respondent No. 3 Baldev Singh as Lambardar of the village as he was found more suitable than the petitioner, while observing as under:-
“I have heard both the learned counsels and seen the recommendations of the lower Revenue Officers. While Nachhatar Singh has many points in his favour having worked as Sarbrah for 4-1/2 years, owning land, having a good character and majornama from various persons. I find that Baldev Singh is a better candidate since he is better educated, owns more land and also has a majornama in his favour. He has a lot of experience and most important of all is available in the village for lamberdari duties all the time. He also has a good character and has served the Government well, Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib has also appreciated his services. Nachhatar Singh has admitted that he is employed in a factory and although he claims that his work keeps him busy only in the morning and in the evening, it is a fact that he is committed to a schedule of work outside the village which he cannot ignore. One of the most important factors for the appointment of lamberdar is the availability of the lambardar to the village people whenever required. That can be possible only if the person is in the village all the time. In this basic qualification Nachhatar Singh fails since his schedule of work in the factory keeps him away for quite a few hours in the day. In addition Baldev Singh is better candidate, has more land and has more maturity and experience. Age is not a factor against him since he is fit and mobile.”
4. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner vide order dated 27.7.2001 set aside the afore-said order and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on the ground that the petitioner is more suitable than respondent No. 3. In this regard, the Commissioner has made the following observations:-
“I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. I find that while Baldev Singh, respondent has been recommended by the Tehsildar as well as A.C. 1st Grade, Nachhattar Singh, appellant has been recommended by the A.C. 2nd Grade, Moreover, there is a majornama on the file of 35 villager in favour of the appellant including lambardars and a Sarpanch. The appellant has 36 bighas 15 biswas which is sufficient for “Zare-Bharat”. However, Nachhatar Singh has an edge on basis that he is working as Sarbrah lambardar for the last six years. I am afraid the respondent does not have any such claim. In view of the above discussion, I find that the appellant is more suitable than the respondent. The appeal is accordingly accepted and the impugned order dated 10.9.1997 passed by the District Collector, Patiala is, hereby set aside. Shri Nachhattar Singh son of Ishar Singh is appointed as Lambardar of village-Dhabali Tehsil Rajpura against the vacancy caused due to the death of Niranjan Singh.”
5. The aforesaid order was set aside by the Financial Commissioner on the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 12.8.2004 and appointed him as Lambardar of the village while observing as under:-
“I have observed that Baldev Singh the petitioner is well qualified with a decree of B.A.(Hons.). He owns more land than the respondent whereas the respondent is only 7th class fail, owns less land than the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner being a retired person from the government service has valuable experience and can now easily be available to the villagers at any time. The respondent on the other hand is admittedly working in the factory. As per ruling quoted by the counsel for the respondent, although working/serving candidate is not debarred from appointing as Lambardar. Still, comparatively the preference is required to be given to a candidate who is available whole time to the villagers. Hence, the choice automatically falls in favour of the petitioner. No doubt that the respondent has worked as Sarbrah Lambardar for five or six years but equally other merits and demerits of the candidates are also required to be kept in view. So far as age factor is concerned both the candidates appeared before the undersigned personally on the date when this case was argued and I have observed that the petitioner is older than the respondent but he is very healthy and fit and alert to perform the duties of Lambardar. After evaluating the whole matter, I have come to the conclusion that in reality the petitioner has a distinct edge over the respondent and is in a better position to serve the community as a Lambardar after taking into consideration all the merits and demerits of the candidates. Accordingly, the present revision petition is accepted and the order of Commissioner is hereby set aside.”
6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Financial Commissioner should not have set aside the order of the Commissioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is a more meritorious candidate and he cannot be ignored merely on the ground that he has to remain outside the village for a short period in a day in connection with his work. He further argued that respondent No. 3 was also ineligible as he was defaulter of the bank.
7. We do not find any force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that the choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 should not normally be interfered by the Commissioner. Only in exceptional circumstances, where a candidate is ineligible and has been appointee! as Lambardar, the interference is required. This is not the present case. In this case, the Collector not only found respondent No. 3 more meritorious candidate but he was held to be more suitable as compared to the petitioner as the petitioner had to remain out of the village for some time in a day in connection with his work. The Commissioner in its order dated 27.7.2001 has set aside the order of the Collector while observing that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No. 3. In our view, the interference by the Commissioner in the order of the Collector on the said ground was not justifiable. Thus, the Financial Commissioner after considering the merits and demerits of the candidates has set aside the order of the Commissioner while holding that respondent No. 3 was more meritorious candidate and there as no justification with the Commissioner to set aside the choice of the Collector. We Also do not find any force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 3 was defaulter of the bank. This point has been raised for the first time. We are of the view that we Cannot go into this question when this point was never raised; before the authorities below.