JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector on 1.2.2005. The respondents herein impugned that order before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who accepted the appeal on 19.8.2005. The petitioner filed a revision against this order before the Financial Commissioner, who has upheld the order of the Commissioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present petition to impugn the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as by the Financial Commissioner. 2. The Collector has clearly discussed the relative merit of both the candidates and thereafter has passed the order, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. The petitioner was noticed to be 40 years old, 10th Class pass and a permanent resident of the Village. He is owner of 3 acres of land. He has constructed a pucca house in the Village. He was noticed to be having a telephone, car and scooter. The petitioner was also President of Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee of the Village and had collected Rs.2,10,000/- for construction of a park in the village. The petitioner had also donated Rs.11,000/- for school and Rs.5,000/- for Dharamshala of Scheduled Castes. He was a member of PTA Committee. The Collector had further noticed that the petitioner donated Rs.19,500/- for School, Rs.2100/- for Sunami and Rs.21,000/- for cremation ground. 3. On the other hand, the Collector had duly considered the merits and qualification of respondent-Sucha Singh. He is stated to be 53 years old and 10th pass. The fact that he had remained Member Panchayat is also noticed. His having remained a Vice President of Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee is also taken note of and the fact that lower Revenue Officers like Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate had recommended his name. 4. After comparing the relative merits, the Collector found that Tarsem Singh (petitioner) to be more suitable for the post of Lambardar on the ground that he is young in age; he owns more land; he is a better social worker and he has been donating for various social causes in the Village. The Commissioner, however, had interfered with this order without much justification. The only reason assigned by the Commissioner to set-aside the order passed by the Collector was that the name of respondent No.4 was recommended by the lower revenue staff. The Commissioner, however, had interfered with this order without much justification. The only reason assigned by the Commissioner to set-aside the order passed by the Collector was that the name of respondent No.4 was recommended by the lower revenue staff. In his order, the Commissioner had clearly noted that education-wise both the candidates were equal and the petitioner was better placed so far as land holding in the Village was concerned. The petitioner was, thus, noticed to be having an edge. Despite noticing these facts, interference by the Commissioner only on the ground that lower revenue staff had recommended the name of respondent No.4- Sucha Singh, in my view, would not be a justified or valid ground for interfering in the choice of the Collector. 5. In fact, counsel for respondent No.4 has only pleaded this aspect that once the name of respondent No.4 was recommended by the lower revenue staff, the Collector could not have ignored the same, unless he had some viable reasons to do so. The recommendation can not be in any manner considered as binding. Collector is not required to give any justification for not accepting recommendation. It is the choice of the Collector, which is material. It has consistently been held that as a general rule the choice of the Collector is final, except where the order discloses the lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact, so as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. 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. There is no allegation that the choice as exercised by the Collector is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In fact, the Commissioner apparently has interfered with the choice exercised by the Collector on no valid ground. There is no provision pointed out before me which would require giving importance to the recommendation of lower revenue staff, as pleaded. There is no plea raised that the choice is arbitrary or capricious or unreasonable. The Financial Commissioner has also failed to see this legal position by upholding the order of Commissioner. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner can not be sustained and are set-aside. The order passed by the Collector is restored. ----------0BSK0----------