JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh J.: - These writ petitions have been filed by unsuccessful candidates though were applicants but were not appointed as Lambardar of the village Fazipur, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. The facts are noticed from Civil Writ Petition No. 12176 of 2010, which is filed by Om Parkash. Civil Writ Petition No. 8055 of 2011 filed by Amar Singh is also being disposed with this writ petition as the same appointment is under challenge in both the petitions. 2. The father of the petitioner Om Parkash was a Lambardar of the village. The petitioner had submitted an application for appointment of Sarbarah Lambardar in place of his father, which was accepted. The petitioner, Om Parkash, thus, claims to have work as Sarbarah Lambardar for 16 years. His father died and on account of vacancy, process was initiated for appointment of Lambardar in the village. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 alongwith Amar Singh, petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 8055 of 2011 made an application for appointment. After verification, recommendation was made by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade as well as Assistant Collector 1st Grade. After considering the relevant merits, the Collector appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of village. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same but the Commissioner has upheld the choice of the Collector. Even Financial Commissioner has not interfered with the orders. 3. Both Om Parkash and Amar Singh, thus, have filed these two writ petitions to challenge the appointment of Mehar Singh (respondent No. 4), as Lambardar. The Collector had noticed the relevant merits of all the candidates. Respondent No. 4 was found to be 46 years of age and healthy person. He has studied upto B.A. 2nd year and owned 4 ½ acres of land and had deposited Rs.1,50,000/- under small saving investment. The Collector after considering the merits of the candidates was of the view that Mehar Singh was more educated and had taken part in social works. The Collector found respondent No. 4 more meritorious and better placed as compared to the petitioner. The Commissioner noticed all the submissions made before him and found that the basis of the petitioner to claim the appointment of Lambadar, on the basis of hereditary claim cannot be taken to his advantage, in view of the law laid down by this Court. The Commissioner noticed all the submissions made before him and found that the basis of the petitioner to claim the appointment of Lambadar, on the basis of hereditary claim cannot be taken to his advantage, in view of the law laid down by this Court. The Commissioner did not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Collector. The Commissioner rightly noticed that the choice of the Collector, who has to take work from Lambardar, should have to be maintained and his choice should not ordinarily be interfered with unless the same is perverse or there has been a material irregularity or illegality involved in the process of selection. The Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Collector so was the view of the Financial Commissioner. The Commissioner and Financial Commissioner has rightly noticed the legal position and had declined to interfere in this case. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. --------------