JUDGMENT Mr. Ajai Lamba, J (Oral).- This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 2.5.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by Collector, Hisar; Order dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar; and Order dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana. 2. Collector vide Order Annexure P-5 appointed respondent No.4, Jagbir Singh, as Lambardar. The comparative merit of the candidates has been taken into account. 3. Respondent No.4 has been found to be more educated having passed 10+2; younger being 25 years of age; belonging to Kumhar Caste, the population of Kumhar caste being 2500; owns 20 kanal 60 marlas of land; having done social work by way of participating in blood donation camps; donated blood himself; participated in pulse polio drive; various plantation programmes and social service through Nehru Yuva Kendra. Petitioner, to the contrary, is 60 years of age, 5th class pass and does not own any land in the village, rather owns land in village Matarsham. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that only factor considered in favour of the private respondent is that he belongs to Kumhar caste that has a population of 2500 whereas petitioner belongs to Saini caste having population of 400. The said consideration is illegal. 5. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 6. Perusal of the order (Annexure P-5) passed by Collector indicates that all the circumstances noticed above have been taken into account. Under Rule 15(d) and (e) of Punjab Land Revenue Rules, personal influence, strength and importance of the community from which selection of headman is to be made, are relevant factors to be considered. In such circumstances, Collector having mentioned the population of a particular community is not entirely de hors the controversy. 7. Be that as it may, I am of the considered opinion that respondent No.4 being more educated and having land in the village, would also be the circumstances relevant to give preference to the said respondent as compared to the merits of the petitioner. In such circumstances, I do not trace any illegality in the order passed by Collector that has been upheld vide other impugned orders, Annexure P-6 and P-7, passed by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. 8. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 9. The petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------