ORDER N.S. Kang, IAS. - This appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1987 against the order dated 26.2.07 of the Commissioner Jalandhar Division passed in relation to the appointment of a lambardar in village Makhupur, Tehsil Balachaur, District S.B.S. Nagar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that proceedings to select a new lambardar in place of the deceased Daulat Ram were initiated by the revenue authorities. 11 candidates applied for the post, but only three were left in the fray when the matter was considered by the District Collector who appointed the appellant Ram Sarup as the lambardar vide his order dated 6.7.06. Two appeals were preferred against this order by Sohan Lal, the present respondent and one Dharwinder Singh. Vide his order now challenge, the Commissioner dismissed Dharwinder Singhs appeal but accepted the one filed by the respondent Sohan Lal, and appointed him as lambardar of village Makhupur. 3. When the case was taken up for consideration, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Commissioner had committed an error in deprecating the conduct of the appellant by holding that he had made a false statement to obtain the sanad lambardari from the Collector. He pointed out that the order of the Collector was dated 6.7.06, and summons issued by the Commissioner in the appeal filed before him were received by the appellant only on 31.8.06. In between the appellant had filed an affidavit before the Collector on 11.8.06 to the fact that no appeal had been filed against the Collectors order and accordingly the sanad had been issued to him. Counsel submitted that there was no misconduct on this account since he had no knowledge of the appeal at the time of filing the affidavit, because summons had not yet been received. Counsel also pointed out that Collectors order was a balanced and well reasoned one and did not suffer from any infirmity. The Commissioner was therefore not justified in setting aside the appointment made by the Collector. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that he was a better candidate than the appellant since he was younger in age and had also studied up to matric level whereas the appellant had studied only upto 5th class. The Commissioner was therefore not justified in setting aside the appointment made by the Collector. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that he was a better candidate than the appellant since he was younger in age and had also studied up to matric level whereas the appellant had studied only upto 5th class. It was also pointed out that his name was also recommended by both the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Magistrate and this recommendation was entitled to some weight. He finally pointed out that his shop was only 2-3 kilometers away from the village, and would not affect his availability to perform the duties of lambardar. 4. I have considered the matter carefully, and I an of the view that there was no misconduct on part of the appellant in obtaining the sanad lambardari despite an appeal having been filed against the Collectors order. As narrated by appellants counsel, and noted in pare 3 above the sequence of events shows that notice of the appeal had not been served upon the appellant at the time when he sought the issuance of the sanad. Respondents counsel tried to argue that the petitioner should have checked about the factum of any appeal having been filed before the Commissioner before seeking sanad in his favour to my mind, this is too onerous an obligation for any candidate. The fact is that he was summoned in the appeal only on 31.8.06 by which time the sanad in his favour had already been issued. There does not seem to be any ground to view the appellants conduct as suspicious. Once this is so it has to be held that the Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the appointment made by the Collector. The only points in the respondents favour are that he is slightly more educated than the appellant. To my mind these facts by themselves are not sufficient to interfere with the choice of the Collector. The law is settled that the Collectors choice should be respected unless it is perverse, and the two factors noted above do not amount to any perversity, in my opinion. 5. As a result of the above discussion, this appeal succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the Collectors choice appointing the appellant Ram Sarup as lambardar of the village Makhupur, Tehsil Balachaur, District S.B.S. Nagar is confirmed. 5. As a result of the above discussion, this appeal succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the Collectors choice appointing the appellant Ram Sarup as lambardar of the village Makhupur, Tehsil Balachaur, District S.B.S. Nagar is confirmed. .