Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18770 of 2008 (Major Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh) and 20225 of 2008 (Surjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh).
2. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 18770 of 2008. Gurdas Singh, who was Lambardar of Village Majara Nau Abad, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr, was removed from his post. Process to fill the post of Lambardar was initiated. The Collector had appointed petitioner, Major Singh, as Sarbrah Lambardar and he accordingly had been working as such since 6.2.2001. Five persons, including the petitioner and respondent, Gian Singh and one Surjit Singh, (petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 20225 of 2008), applied for the said post. The District Collector then, after due verification of the character, appointed petitioner, Major Singh, as Lambardar on 25.3.2004. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against this order before Commissioner, who allowed the same and set-aside the appointment of petitioner as Lambardar. In his place, the Commissioner appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the Village, finding him more meritorious. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, who initially granted stay in favour of the petitioner but has dismissed the petition on 5.10.2007. The prayer to review the order was also declined on 19.9.2008 and, thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Collector had appointed the petitioner as Lambardar after comparing the relative merits of all the candidates under consideration. The Commissioner, however, set-aside the order without giving any finding that this order was perverse in any manner. The counsel, thus, submits that the Commissioner was not justified in appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar as choice of the Collector is to be preferred and generally can be interfered with only when it is found to be perverse.
4. Mr. Satinder Khanna, counsel for respondent No. 4, however, would justify the order passed by the Commissioner. He would refer to the preliminary submissions made in the reply to say that the petitioner does not deserve to be heard on merits as he had made an attempt to mislead the Courts. In this regard, the counsel would point out that the petitioner had projected himself to be an ex-Sarpanch before the Financial Commissioner, which was factually wrong. The petitioner had stated that he was graduate whereas he was only 10+2 pass. The counsel made a strong grievance of the fact that the petitioner had mentioned that respondent No. 4 was involved in criminal cases but did not disclose the fact that the respondent was subsequently acquitted. He accordingly would submit that the petitioner had made an attempt to mislead and so does not deserve to be heard on merit. The counsel pleaded that the writ petition should be dismissed on this ground alone as the petitioner has not approached the Courts with clean hands. On merits, the counsel has justified the order passed by the Commissioner, which has subsequently been upheld by the Financial Commissioner.
5. Mr. B.S. Bali, appearing for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 20225 of 2008, submits that he is much more meritorious than petitioner, Major Singh and respondent No. 4, Gian Singh and so deserves to be appointed. Mr. Nagra, appearing for the petitioner, Major Singh in Civil Writ Petition No. 18770 of 2008, points out that Surjit Singh had never challenged the order of appointment of Major Singh as Lambardar before Commissioner and, thus, can not now be heard to claim appointment at this stage.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Petitioner, Major Singh is 47 years old. He projected his educational qualification as 10+2 before the Collector. It is nowhere recorded in the order that he claimed himself to be Graduate. He owned 12 kanals of land. He had remained Sarbrah Lambardar for 10 years and was found to be well conversant with the work of Lambardar. Gian Singh, respondent No. 4, is 60 years old and is a matriculate. He has retired as a Senior Assistant from the Punjab Roadways and has built a house in one kanal area. His father owned 5 acres of land. Considering these relative merits, Collector found petitioner, Major Singh, to be better qualified for being appointed as Lambardar. The Collector also gave preference to the fact that the petitioner had been a Sarbrah Lambardar for 10 years during which time no complaint had been received against him. His young age was another factor, which was taken into +consideration while appointing him as Lambardar. The view taken by the Collector appears just and reasonable. It can not be termed perverse or otherwise wrong in any manner. The Commissioner has differed with the view and has found respondent No. 4 more suitable. The Commissioner ignored the advanced age of respondent No. 4 on the ground that there is no age limit provided. It may be so but comparative ages of the candidates is a matter which is relevant and taken into consideration for the appointment of Lambardar. A person younger in age is generally preferred. Such a person can perform his duties better compared to a person of advanced age. The Commissioner did not find any significant difference between 10+2 and Matric and ignored the land holding of the petitioner and so also the experience which the petitioner gained as a Sarbrah Lambardar. There may not be much difference in the education qualification but Matric is certainly not better than 10+2, when merits are to be considered. The fact that the petitioner was a Sarbrah Lambardar also could not be easily ignored being very relevant factor to be considered. The Commissioner, thus, has ignored all the relevant factors which were showing the petitioner to be more meritorious. The Commissioner did not find the choice of the Collector to be perverse. Rather the choice of Commissioner is perverse. The choice exercised by the Collector is well reasoned, fair and just. It can not termed as perverse or infirm in any manner to justify interference. The action of the Commissioner is not found justified in setting-aside the appointment of the petitioner to appoint respondent No. 4. The Commissioner while doing so has ignored all the vital factors standing in favour of the petitioner and those which stood against respondent No. 4. He respondent No. 4) was involved in an FIR, in which he was subsequently acquitted. This may not be a disqualification as such, but certainly was a factor which was to be taken into consideration while considering the relative merits of the candidates, which were under consideration. This could not have been ignored.
7. There is no attempt seen on the part of the petitioner to mislead the Court. The petitioner is alleged to have made an attempt to mislead the Courts below. It is alleged that the petitioner gave his wrong education qualification. Before Collector, he is seen to have stated that he is 10+2 pass, which is not wrong. The explanation given by counsel for the petitioner that in a review application it was inadvertently mentioned by his counsel that the petitioner was a Sarpanch on account of some communication gap as what he intended to convey was that the respondent No. 4 had been the Sarpanch of the village. The petitioner was justified in making reference to the FIR having been lodged against respondent No. 4, which is factually correct. It was for the respondent to come and disclose to the Court that he had been subsequently acquitted which he did. On this ground, it is not possible to urge that any attempt to mislead the Court or the authorities has been made. It can not, thus, be said that the petitioner can be thrown out on this ground and is not to be heard. The judgments cited by the counsel for the respondent in this regard, thus, would not have any relevance.
8. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs v. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs and Ors. : (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 293 (S.C.) : A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 853 was a case where vital documents were withheld from the Court. It was termed as fraud on the Court. It is not so in the present case. So is the position in The Chandigarh Primary Cooperative Agricultural Devp. Bank Ltd. v. The State of Punjab : (2005-2)140 P.L.R. 371, where decree was obtained by fraud.
9. The impugned orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, thus, can not be sustained. The same are set-aside. The order passed by the Collector is restored. The appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar done by the Collector is up-held. Accordingly, Civil Writ Petition No. 18770 of 2008 filed by Major Singh is allowed. Since Surjit Singh (petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 20225 of 2008) had not challenged the order passed by the Collector. He can not now be heard to challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. Civil Writ Petition No. 20225 of 2008 filed by Surjit Singh is, thus, dismissed, which is otherwise lacking in merits.