A Class 7 pass village headman who has quietly done the job for a decade has survived a courtroom challenge from a younger, more educated rival.But in upholding his appointment as village lambardar, the Punjab and Haryana High Court turned the spotlight on a larger question: Should minimum educational qualification not be prescribed for the post?Refusing to disturb a decade-old appointment, Justice Harsh Bunger simultaneously asked Punjab to consider whether its lambardars should, at the very least, be educated up to matriculation level. Dismissing the petition, the Bench asserted: “This court is of the considered view that keeping in view the nature of duties required to be discharged by a lambardar, it would be desirable that such person possesses a basic understanding of Punjabi, Hindi and English, along with a minimum educational qualification at least up to the Matriculation level”.Referring to the neighboring State of Haryana, Justice Bunger asserted the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post was ‘Middle Pass’. “However, no such minimum educational qualification has been prescribed in the State of Punjab,” the court observed.Before parting with the order, Justice Bunger asserted: “The state of Punjab is requested to consider prescribing a minimum educational qualification for appointment to the post of a lambardar. particularly keeping in view the nature of duty’s performed”.The case revolves around the appointment of the Lambardar — the village headman who, despite the colonial vintage of the office, continues to occupy an influential position in Punjab’s rural administrative machinery. The challenger was younger and better educated — a 12th pass candidate. The selected candidate, on the other hand, had studied only up to Class 7.But the court was unimpressed by the educational comparison in legal terms. “Minimum educational qualification has not been prescribed under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules for appointment to the post of lambardar. Accordingly, the selected candidate cannot be held to be ineligible for consideration to the said post merely on account of his lower educational qualification”.The petitioner’s argument that he was younger than the selected candidate, too, failed to find favour with the Bench. Justice Bunger asserted age mattered only in the context of one’s physical ability to discharge duties. No evidence had been produced to show the appointee was incapable of functioning as village headman.“No doubt, the petitioner is comparatively younger than the appointee, and the age of a candidate is a relevant factor for appointment to the post. However, the age of a person is to be considered in the context of his physical ability and capacity to discharge his duties as a headman of the village. No such plea has been raised that the appointee is incapacitated from discharging the functions of a lambardar in view of his age,” Justice Bunger asserted.The Bench also noted the appointment had never been stayed by the court. The selected candidate had already been working as lambardar of a village in Patiala district for more than 10 years without any recorded complaint regarding his efficiency.The Bench concluded by directing the forwarding of the order to the State counsel for further transmission to the authorities concerned.