JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J:- The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure P- 4) passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby the appointment of petitioner as Lambardar of Village Noorpura, Tehsil and District Sangrur has been set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that due to death of Jangir Singh, Lambardar, the post of Lambardar of village Noorpura, Tehsil and District Sangrur fell vacant. After obtaining the necessary sanctions, proclamation was made in the village. In pursuance of the proclamation Jagjit Singh, Kuldip Singh, Baldev Singh, Sahib Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Jora Singh, Gursaran Singh and Harjit Singh submitted their applications. Baldev Singh, Jora Singh, Gursaran Singh and Harjit Singh did not contest before the Naib Tehsildar, Bhawanigarh. Only four candidates remained in fray. Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and SDO (Civil) recommended the name of the petitioner. The District Collector after appreciating the comparative merits of the candidates appointed petitioner as Lambardar of the village. Kuldip Singh-respondent No.1 filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner that has been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 22.04.2008 (P-2). Kuldip Singh further filed revision before the Financial Commissioner. The same has been accepted vide order dated 12.05.2010 (P-4). Hence, the instant writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has been recommended by all the subordinate revenue authorities. The District Collector after appreciating the comparative merits of the candidates appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the Village. The said appointment has been affirmed in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner has set aside the order of the District Collector and Divisional Commissioner without recording a finding that the order passed by the District Collector is perverse. The choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside. The only ground taken for setting aside the appointment of the petitioner is qualification and excess land. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is acceptable on the ground that the financial commissioner has not recorded a finding that the order of the District Collector is perverse neither he has recorded any finding with regard to perversity in the order of the Divisional Commissioner. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is acceptable on the ground that the financial commissioner has not recorded a finding that the order of the District Collector is perverse neither he has recorded any finding with regard to perversity in the order of the Divisional Commissioner. It is a settled principle of law that the choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside unless it is perverse. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the District Collector and Divisional Commissioner. 7. There is no qualification prescribed under the rules with regard to appointment of Lambardar. Even an illiterate person can be appointed. The petitioner has preferential claim in view of the fact that his father was a previous Lambardar. Otherwise also all the subordinate revenue authorities have recommended his name. 8. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered view that the choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly. 9. This view has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram and others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 545] : 2009(3) SCC-439, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the controversy relating to appointment of Lambardar under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and Rules framed thereunder. The Apex Court noticed few old cases of Lahore High Court which throw some light on the subject matter are as under:- “In Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v. Ghulam Haidar (1940 Lahore Law Times 25), it was stated: “…It is certainly not wise, save in very exceptional circumstances, to appoint for the first time, an Inamkhor or Zaildar whose age is 60.” 10. In Kalyan Singh v. Haidar, (1928 Lahore Law Times, 33), the Financial Commissioner held that ordinarily the Collector’s choice appointing a Zaildar or Sufedpost should not be interfered with even though the appellate authority believes that his choice was not the best choice. Similar view was expressed in Lila Ram v. Asa Ram, (1995 Lahore Law Times, 29), in the following terms: “…While it is now an established principle that there should be no interference with the choice made by the Collector, it does not follow that where the Collector’s order is based on a misrepresentation of facts, there should still be no interference.” 11. The above view has also been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in of Phool Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, [2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 962] : 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 819. 12. It has been observed that there should be no interference with the choice made by the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar even if two views are possible. It is only the prerogative of the Collector to compare the merits of the candidates for the post of Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner has only limited right to interfere that too when the choice of the Collector is found to be perverse, suffers from material irregularity and only then the order of the Collector can be set aside. In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed. 13. The order dated 12.05.2010 (P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab is set aside. The order dated 06.11.2007 (P-1) passed by the District Collector and order dated 22.04.2008 (P-2) Divisional Commissioner are restored and upheld. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. ----------------