JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - Issue relates to appointment of Lambardar of village Lelian, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. It may be noticed that the vacancy for the post of Lambardar occurred on death of previous Lambardar in village in the year 1979. It was some time 40 years ago. The petitioner claims to be working as Lambardar for nearly 30 years and has some documents to show in support how the petitioner could work as Lambardar without being appointed as such. It may sound strange but is intriguing as well. 2. The further twist is seen from the averments made in the petition is that petitioner was not even aware that he was not regular Lambardar, he applied for Sanad Lambardari in the year 2006. Thereafter, the case for appointment of regular Lambardar was initiated. 3. The petitioner has competed but the Collector elected respondent No. 4. The petitioner claims that he is more meritorious as he had studied upto 11th class and in support of his educational qualification he submitted an admission certificate to show that he had taken admission in 9th class on 02.06.1961. This certificate is issued by the Principal of the Government School Lapoke (Amritsar) on 17.09.2008. The petitioner, accordingly, impugned the order passed by the Collector appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal. The petitioner remained unsuccessful before the Financial Commissioner as well and has accordingly impugned the order passed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner through the present writ petition. 4. As per counsel the petitioner had worked as Sarbrah Lambardar for 30 years. The petitioner counts it as his qualification but in my view this seems to be an extra-ordinary favour to the petitioner without any legal justification. The petitioner can not seek advantage of this illegal act which was allowed to perpetuate for quite some time. 5. The statement that appointment of respondent No. 4 is on account of hereditary claim will not be legally sustainable in my view. This aspect has been considered that respondent No. 4 is a grand son of the earlier Lambardar but that is not the reason for appointing him while considering over all merits and demerits of the candidates. This aspect has been considered and added as a qualification. This aspect has been considered that respondent No. 4 is a grand son of the earlier Lambardar but that is not the reason for appointing him while considering over all merits and demerits of the candidates. This aspect has been considered and added as a qualification. This would be in terms of the provisions of the Revenue enactments as this is one of the ground which can be taken into consideration. The petitioner, however, could not succeed in showing that he had educational qualification as claimed by him. The certificate shown and produced by him did not clearly establish that he had studied upto 11th class as is claimed by the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner is justified in observing that choice exercised by the Collector is required to be upheld as it does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------