JUDGMENT (ORAL) Jasbir Singh J.- Dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the appointment of respondent no.3 as Lambardar of Village Kokri Butteran, District Moga. It is apparent from the records that on accrual of a vacancy, applications were invited to appoint Lambardar of the village referred to above. Petitioner and respondent No.3 were the contesting candidates. The Collector by taking note of the comparative merits, appointed respondent No.3 as Lambardar of the village. The petitioner went in appeal which was allowed, the Commissioner set aside appointment of respondent No.3 as Lambardar and instead appointed the petitioner against that post. In revision, the respondent No.3 succeeded. Hence this writ petition. 2. It is an established law that ordinarily choice made by the Collector, in the appointment of a Lambardar is not to be interfered with unless the same is perverse in law and facts. The Financial Commissioner while allowing the revision petition filed by the petitioner has observed thus: “ (i) One very important ground taken by the Commissioner in favour of the present respondent is that he is the grandson of the deceased lambardar and thus he has a hereditary claim. This observation is wrong in the sense that the Lambardar, Bachan Singh whose death caused this vacancy was not the real grandfather of the respondent. However,earlier lambardar prior to Bachan Singh was a grandfather of the respondent. (ii) As per the Government instructions, land holding is not a criteria for Harijan Lambadari whereas it is an important consideration for general vacancy of lambadari. Moreover, as a pensioner the appellant definitely has a reasonable financial base. The Naib Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate declared that he was landless whereas jamabandi of 1999-2000 produced before the Tehsildasr and referred to by him shows that he was not landless. It shows his ownership to the extent of 3 kanal 8 marlas. (iii) Both the candidates were equal in age(51 years) but the respondent, Balwant Singh had declared himself 43 years old. This age is mentioned in the report dated 23.6.2003 of the Naib Tehsildar. Thus, he stated wrong fact about his age. (iv) Army award mentioned by the Commissioner in favour of the respondent, Balwant Singh is not actually an award. It is merely a complimentary letter of good wishes which is issued to army jawans at the time of retirement in routine. Thus, he stated wrong fact about his age. (iv) Army award mentioned by the Commissioner in favour of the respondent, Balwant Singh is not actually an award. It is merely a complimentary letter of good wishes which is issued to army jawans at the time of retirement in routine. This letter of good wishes carries printed signature of the Chief of Army Staff. The very fact that the status of Honorary Captain was conferred upon the present appellant is a proof of his superiority. 3. It is a well settled principle that the choice of the District Collector in appointment of Lambadar should be honoured unless it is perverse. The above facts reveal that the Collector’s order was not perverse. I, therefore, conclude that the commissioner’s interference was unwarranted. His order is, therefore, set aside by accepting the appeal.” 4.We feel that the respondent No.3 was a better candidate than the petitioner. It is not in dispute that petitioner and respondent NO.3 both were in the Army and respondent no.3 had retired from the post of Honorary Captain whereas petitioner had retired only as an Honorary Subedar Major i.e. a lower post. Respondent No.3 is a matured person as he is older in age. 5.No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ————————