Dismissed¶¶24

Ravinder Kumar v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2026LPA/3164/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, LPA-3164-2025 (O&M), decided 21.01.2026 (Harsimran Singh Sethi and Vikas Suri JJ., judgment by Sethi J.). Keywords: Lambardar appointment; honorary capacity; choice of authorities; age preference; better qualification; disqualification; Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab; Commissioner; Collector; Naib Tehsildar; Sub Divisional Magistrate; Baldev Raj; Ravinder Kumar; writ petition dismissed; pending civil miscellaneous application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

A lambardar performs duties in an honorary capacity; the choice of candidate is left to the authorities and can be interfered with only where the candidate sought to be appointed has incurred a disqualification. ¶¶18

Ravinder Kumar Vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, being younger in age and better qualified than respondent No. 4, was entitled to preference in appointment as Lambardar. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

Merely being younger in age cannot be a ground to set aside the appointment of respondent No. 4, as that would amount to holding that an elder in age stands disqualified where a younger candidate competes.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that respondent No. 4 had been discharging his duties for the last two years and no complaint on record showed incapacity due to age.ratio¶¶19
On the totality of circumstances — no disqualification shown against respondent No. 4, who was the choice candidate for the post of lambardar at all levels (Naib Tehsildar, SDM/Collector) except the Commissioner — the writ petition was dismissed.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 25.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge upholding the Financial Commissioner's decision confirming Baldev Raj (respondent No. 4) as Lambardar. Held: (i) a lambardar serves in an honorary capacity and the choice of candidate rests with the authorities, to be interfered with only if the candidate sought to be appointed has incurred a disqualification; (ii) mere youthfulness of a rival candidate is not a ground to set aside an appointment, since that would amount to treating elder age as a disqualification where a younger candidate competes; (iii) respondent No. 4 had discharged his duties for the last two years with no complaint of incapacity due to age, and was the choice candidate at all levels (Naib Tehsildar, SDM/Collector) except the Commissioner. No irregularity or disqualification was shown; the writ petition was dismissed and pending civil miscellaneous application(s) disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

106 LPA-3164-2025 (O&M) Decided on : 21.01.2026

RAVINDER KUMAR

...Appellant

Versus

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PUNJAB AND OTHERS . . . Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

¶8

PRESENT: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

¶9

¶10

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

¶11

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, holding that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 Baldev Raj as Lambardar has been upheld.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that the appellant is younger in age and better qualified and therefore, he should be given preference over the respondent No. 4, which preference was rightly given by the Commissioner, but the same has wrongly been setaside by the Financial Commissioner, which order has erroneously been upheld by the learned Single Judge.

¶13

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone

¶14

RIYA 2026.01.23 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

¶16

LPA-3164-2025 (O&M)

¶17

through the case file with his able assistance.

¶18

It may be noticed that the lambardar has to perform the duties in an honorary capacity. The choice is to be left to the authorities and can only be interfered with in case the candidate sought to be appointed has incurred any disqualification. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that the appointment of respondent No. 4 by the Collector suffered from any irregularity, or that respondent No. 4 has incurred any disqualification.

¶19

The order passed by the Commissioner has been set-aside by the Financial Commissioner on the ground that the reason given by the commissioner to set-aside the appointment of respondent No. 4 was that the appellant was younger in age. Merely being younger in age, cannot be a ground to set-aside the appointment of respondent No. 4, as, the same would amount to holding that a person an elder in age stands disqualified in case a younger candidate is competing against him or her. Further, findings have been recorded by the learned Single Judge, that in the last two years, the respondent No. 4 has been discharging his duties and no complaint has come on record to show that due to his age, he has been incapable of discharging his duties on the post in question.

¶20

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances of the present case, where no disqualification is shown to have been incurred by respondent No. 4, coupled with the fact that respondent No. 4 was the choice candidate for the post of lambardar at all levels starting from Naib Tehsildar, Sub Divisional Magistrate/ Collector, except the Commissioner, hence, ��

¶21

RIYA 2026.01.23 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

¶23

LPA-3164-2025 (O&M)

¶24