IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12133 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Civil Secretariat Haryana, Chandigarh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the caveator. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Seven persons applied for appointment of a Lambarar in village Sulchani, District Hisar in response to the Mustri Munadi carried out in the village. Subsequently, only three candidates, i.e., the present petitioner, respondent No.6 and one Virender Kumar appeared before the Naib-Tehsildar, Narnaund, who recommended the name of respondent No.6 for appointment as Lambardar. The Tehsildar and SDO (Civil), Narnaund also recommended the name of respondent No.6. In view of the recommendation, the Collector appointed respondent No.6 as Lambardar vide order dated 20.1.2009. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, who set-aside this order, against which respondent No.6 filed revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner has set-aside the order passed by the Commissioner and has appointed respondent No.6 as Lambardar. He has upheld the order of Collector giving valid reasons. The case Civil Writ Petition No.12133 of 2011 :2: of respondent No.6 has been found more meritorious apart from other submissions. It has consistently been held that as a general rule, choice of Collector is final and except where the order discloses the lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact, so as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, no interference would be called for. In fact, the Financial Commissioner has also assessed the relative merits of the candidates and has come to the conclusion that the Collector had rightly appointed respondent No.6 as Lambardar. The legal position, however, is slightly different. It is not for the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner to assess the relative merit, once the choice has been exercised by the Collector. It is only in the eventuality of any arbitrary exercise or lack of jurisdiction that choice exercised by the Collector can be interfered with. In this regard, reference can be made to Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurdial Singh Versus Iqbal Singh, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 283. Dismissed. July 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE