JUDGMENT AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) - On the death of Sunder Singh, Lambardar of Village Shutrana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, on 18.12.2003, a Lambardar was required to be appointed. District Collector, Patiala, appointed Tarlochan Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar, vide order dated 27.6.2006 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner-Amrik Singh and another person carried an appeal. The Commissioner, vide order dated 4.4.2007 (Annexure P-4), remanded the case to District Collector to consider the claims of all contesting candidates. The issue was carried to the Financial Commissioner however, the appeal was withdrawn. 2. Vide order dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure P-5), the Collector has appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. A perusal of the order indicates that for appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar, hereditary claim of the petitioner was considered, including other matters. 3. Respondent No.4 carried an appeal before the Commissioner, which has has been dismissed on the ground that the choice of District Collector is required to be given sanctity, unless the same suffers from some patent illegality. 4. Respondent No.4, under the circumstances, filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, which has been allowed vide order dated 6.4.2010 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner has come up in this writ petition in challenge to order (Annexure P-7). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.4 wrongly claimed the benefit of a Gram Panchayat resolution in his favour. On the second count, it has been argued that respondent No.4 wrongly claimed benefit of education with the plea that he was matric pass. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that the petitioner does not have any hereditary claim and is illiterate. Admittedly, respondent No.4 is 8th class pass and therefore, has reasonably good knowledge of the languages, so as to discharge the duties as a Lambardar. 7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, in reference to the impugned order. 8. Respondent No.4 is 45 years of age, 8th class pass, owns 19 acres of land and has support of 357 persons of the village. The candidature of respondent No.4 was recommended by Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate. 9. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is 40 years of age, owns 18 acres of land and has support of 204 persons of the village. The candidature of respondent No.4 was recommended by Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate. 9. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is 40 years of age, owns 18 acres of land and has support of 204 persons of the village. Admittedly, the petitioner does not belong to the family of Sunder Singh, deceased Lambardar, and therefore, it is made evident that the petitioner wrongly claimed the benefit of hereditary claim. 10. On a pointed question of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the petitioner is literate. All that has been contended is that the petitioner is 8th class fail. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, I am of the considered view that the Financial Commissioner has not committed any illegality in accepting the revision of respondent No.4 and directing appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Surely, respondent No.4 is more educated which, in my considered opinion, would be a very relevant circumstance for appointment of a Lambardar. The petitioner claims benefit of hereditary claim which, in fact, was never there. The petitioner clearly is not literate. 12. So far as the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat are concerned, there is no evidence or material on the record to indicate that respondent No.4 had, at any point of time, indulged in any forgery of any resolution of the Gram Panchayat. 13 In view of the above, no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 14. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.