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 20.12.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector, Jalandhar, appointing respondent No.3 as Lambardar (SC) of village Samrari, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar and order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab whereby the appointment of petitioner to the post of Lambardar (SC) of the Village, by virtue of order dated 29.08.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner, has been set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused due to death of Sh. Jagat Ram, previous Lambardar (SC) of Village Samrari, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, proclamation was made in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the District Collector. In pursuance of the proclamation, four applicants submitted their applications within the prescribed time. Tehsildar and SDM, Phillaur recommended the name of Shingara Singh-respondent No.3 and sent the case to the District Collector. Before the District Collector Baksa Singh also appeared. The District Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found Shingara Singh-respondent No.3 to be fit and suitable candidate and appointed him as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 20.12.2005 (Annexure P-1). Harjinder Pal-petitioner challenged the said order before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 29.08.2006 (Annexure P-3) set aside the order of the District Collector and appointed Harjinder Pal-petitioner as Lambardar (SC) of the village. Against that order, Shingara Singh-respondent No.3 preferred appeal before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-7) set aside the order dated 29.08.2006 passed by the Financial Commissioner and affirmed the order of the District Collector, appointing Shingara Singhrespondent No.3 as Lambardar (SC) of the Village. 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 argued that District Collector while appointing respondent No.3 has not assessed the comparative merits of the candidates. The Commissioner was right in appointing the petitioner as Lambardar (SC) of the Village being younger in age, better educated and has sufficient means of finance. The candidature of the petitioner was supported by Panchayat and majority of the residents of the village. The Commissioner was right in appointing the petitioner as Lambardar (SC) of the Village being younger in age, better educated and has sufficient means of finance. The candidature of the petitioner was supported by Panchayat and majority of the residents of the village. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has been working as Lambardar of the Village since the date his appointment was made by the Commissioner and no complaint has been received against the petitioner till date whereas respondent No.3 has been illegally attesting the documents without any authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that respondent No.3 is a photographer and cannot make him available in the village at all times. 5. Contrary to it, learned counsel for respondent No.3 states that the District Collector after appreciating the comparative merit found Shingara Singh-respondent No.3 to be fit, suitable and more meritorious candidate and appointed him as such. It is a settled principle of law that the choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside. It can only be set aside if there is perversity or illegality in the impugned order of the Collector. To support his contention, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed reliance upon judgment of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram & others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 545] : 2009(3) SCC-439, Lila Ram Vs. Asa Ram, 1995 Lahore Law Times-29. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and am of the view that in view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram & others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 545] : 2009(3) SCC-439, Lila Ram Vs. Asa Ram, 1995 Lahore Law Times-29 followed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Phool Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, [2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 962] : 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 819, the choice of the District Collector cannot be lightly set aside. In Mahavir Singh (Supra), wherein 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 appointment to the post of Lambardar. The Commissioner has not applied its mind while appointing petitioner as Lambardar of the village. 7. It is only the prerogative of the Collector to compare the merits of the candidates for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The Commissioner has not applied its mind while appointing petitioner as Lambardar of the village. 7. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to illegally attesting of documents by respondent No.3 is concerned, respondent No.3 has justified it on the ground that he was doing so under impression that he was appointed by District Collector which has been affirmed by Financial Commissioner. Even otherwise from the date on which respondent No.3 was apprised by the Tehsildar, Phillaur or the District Collector, Jalandhar (Annexure P-8 and P-9), that since no sanad lambardari has been issued in his name, he cannot act as Lambardar. No complaint has been received against respondent No.3 nor any instance on the part of respondent No.3 has been mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter. The view of the District Collector in appointing respondent No.3 as Lambardar has been rightly affirmed by the Financial Commissioner. 8. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition fails. 9. Dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. ------------------