JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, J. (Oral):- Heard. 2. The respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Lambardar by the District Collector, Nawanshahr. Aggrieved, the appellant/writ petitioner challenged the said order before the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner set aside the appointment made by the District Collector. The respondent No. 4, thereafter, preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, which was allowed and the order of the Collector was restored. 3. The aforesaid order of the Financial Commissioner was put to challenge by the present appellant/writ petitioner in the writ petition. The same having dismissed the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner by placing the relevant facts as available on record has submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner owns vast properties both movable and immovable; his case was recommended by the local people as well as by revenue authorities of the State and furthermore his contribution to the community has been significant. The respondent No. 4, according to the appellant/writ petitioner, is a man of meagre resources and is also alleged to be a drug addict with little or no contribution to the society. In these circumstances, according to the appellant/writ petitioner the Commissioner had rightly interfered with the appointment made by the District Collector. Interference with the aforesaid order of the Commissioner by the Financial Commissioner in exercise of the revisional powers is patently wrong and, therefore, interference may be made by this Court by reversing the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. We have perused the order of the District Collector, the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner. The District Collector on a comparative evaluation of the credentials of each candidate took the view that the respondent No. 4 is found to be ‘sharp and smart’ and furthermore as his case has been duly recommended by several revenue authorities he is the most suitable amongst the five candidates who had appeared in the selection. The Commissioner who had interfered with the order of the District Collector on the other hand gave primacy to the details of the property owned by the appellant/writ petitioner. Eventually, the learned Financial Commissioner took the view that the decision of the District Collector should be allowed to prevail in the absence of any apparent error and arbitrariness in the selection process. 6. Eventually, the learned Financial Commissioner took the view that the decision of the District Collector should be allowed to prevail in the absence of any apparent error and arbitrariness in the selection process. 6. The trend of the judicial pronouncements on the subject matter is that ordinarily and in the normal course the view of the District Collector should be allowed to prevail unless the decision is grossly erroneous or vitiated by arbitrariness and perversity. In the present case the District Collector considered the credentials of each of the candidates and took the view that the respondent No. 4 is ‘smart and sharp’, words on which much criticism has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. The said words need not be construed in the literal sense but must be understood to be an expression of the broad view of the District Collector with regard to the suitability of the respondent No. 4. That apart, if the decision of the District Collector has been made on evaluation of the relative suitability of all the candidates in the field and there is nothing to indicate that the decision is erroneous, the appellate authority should not be allowed to supplant its views upon a reconsideration of suitability of the candidates. 7. The provisions of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, which provide the different parameters that are required to be considered in the selection of a Lambardar does not give primacy to a person with more resources. On the contrary, we would understand the purport of the said Rule to be laying down the requirement of a minimum financial stability and suitability. As long as a candidate meets the said requirement he would be eligible to be considered alongwith the others who may be stronger in terms of resources. In the instant case, the property details of the respondent No 4 would indicate that he does not suffer from any financial unsoundness and his case had been recommended by the Circle Revenue Officer and Tehsildar of Nawanshahr. If on consideration of the said facts District Collector had selected the respondent No. 4 the said decision should be allowed to prevail. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. If on consideration of the said facts District Collector had selected the respondent No. 4 the said decision should be allowed to prevail. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. C.M. No. 4036 of 2010 As by order passed today we have not entertained the appeal, no order will be called for on the stay application. —————