IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12048 of 2011 Ram Juari ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner Haryana (Revenue) at 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.Haresh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Four persons applied for appointment of a Lambarar in village Kachrauli, District Panipat in response to an advertisement issued in this regard. One person withdrew and one of them did not appear before the authorities. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the Tehsildar and Assistant Collector. Collector, however, after assessing the relative merits appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who interfered with this order and appointed him as Lambardar instead of respondent No.4. Thereafter, respondent No.4 challenged the order passed by the Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner and he has reversed the order passed by the Collector and has upheld the appointment of respondent No.4 as done by the Collector. Counsel for the petitioner has made reference to various issues to claim that he has a better merit than respondent No.4. It Civil Writ Petition No.12048 of 2011 :2: 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.4 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 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE