JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J.:- The petitioner was an applicant for appointment as Scheduled Caste Lambardar, vacancy for which had arisen in village Gobindgarh on account of death of earlier Lambardar Hari Singh, who died on 18.1.2005. In response to Munadi held in the village, three candidates, including the petitioner, applied for being appointed as Lambardar. Based on the recommendation received, the Collector appointed respondent No.2 as Lambardar. The petitioner remained unsuccessful in appeal filed before the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner also upheld the appointment of respondent No.2 and the petitioner accordingly has filed the present writ petition to impugn these orders. 2. The Collector while appointing respondent No.2 had considered the relative merits of three candidates under consideration and noticed the submissions made on behalf each of the candidate. Respondent No.2 was found more appropriate by the Collector due to the reason that he is more educated than the other candidates. Respondent No.2 is an Ex-serviceman and has retired from the Army in the rank of Naib-Subedar. He is also an income tax payee and is permanent resident of the village. He is easily accessible. His name has also been recommended by the villagers. The other candidate named Balbir Singh son of Bachittar Singh was found o be involved in an FIR which was pending. The petitioner was not found suitable as he was running a grocery shop and, thus, could not be available to perform the work of Lambardar. 3. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reason given by the Collector to decline the claim of the petitioner is not proper. This is not the only ground for which respondent No.2 has been appointed as Lambardar. Rather he has been found to be having more merit as noticed in the impugned order. 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. See Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurdial Singh Versus Iqbal Singh, [2008(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FC) 2077] : 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 283. Accordingly, the choice of the Collector is to be treated as final. See Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurdial Singh Versus Iqbal Singh, [2008(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FC) 2077] : 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 283. Accordingly, the choice of the Collector is to be treated as final. No submission is made to show lack of jurisdiction or error of fact or arbitrariness, which would call for interference in the choice exercised by the Collector. No case for interference, therefore, is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ----------------