IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17440 of 2010 Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & 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.Pawan Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Three persons applied for appointment of a Lambarar of Rohtak in response to the proclamation issued by the Circle Revenue Officer. After considering the relative merits of the candidates, the Naib Tehsildar recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. The Tehsildar also gave concurrence to the recommendation made by the Naib Tehsildar and sent the case to the S.D.M., Rohtak, who recommended the name of respondent No.5 instead of the petitioner. Deputy Collector appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar of Rohtak. Feeling aggrieved against the order of Deputy Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who accepted the same and set-aside the order of Collector. Respondent No.5 preferred a revision against the order of Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner, who set-aside the Civil Writ Petition No.17440 of 2010 :2: order passed by the Commissioner and remanded the case to the Collector. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this court by way of filing the present writ petition. Respondent No.5 has filed reply pleading that the Financial Commissioner has rightly set-aside the order passed by the Commissioner and he has rightly been appointed as Lambardar. 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 rightly observed that appointing authority of Lambardar is Collector and that the Collector had rightly appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner is justified in observing that Commissioner's order suffers from infirmity, 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 15, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE