>  Carrporate Law   >  

2022 MLD 488
Headman (Lumbardar), appointment of—Hereditary claim—Substitution of findings—Respondent was appointed as headman (Lumbardar) after death of his real uncle—Validity—Number of factors existed which were relevant for appointment of a headman—Hereditary claim of candidates was one of those factors according to which 30 marks were awarded to a candidate falling in first blood—Respondent was nephew of deceased headman and that was the reason he was recommended by Authority concerned to be appointed as village headman on the basis of various preferential reasons including hereditary claim— High Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction could not substitute its findings in order to undertake an exercise for evaluating available material to determine Suit ability of candidates—Competent authorities in revenue hierarchy had already considered merits of petitioner and respondent and after analyzing all pros and cons decided to appoint respondent as village headman instead of petitioner—Order of lower revenue hierarchy was questioned by petitioner up to revisional forum and then a review was filed but he failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in such orders—High Court declined to interfere in appointment of respondent as village headman as there were concurrent findings of revenue hierarchy and the same were based on proper appraisal of relevant material—Constitutional jurisdiction could only be exercised if it appeared the Court that there was some patent illegality or jurisdictional defect in the order assailed—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances