JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - Respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar of Village Rauni, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana by the Collector. The vacancy of Lambardar had occurred on the death of Mohinder Singh, Lambardar, who died on 16.11.1990. Proclamation, inviting applications for the post of Lambardar, accordingly was made after getting permission from the District Collector vide order dated 24.7.1991. The applications were invited and were considered by Naib Tehsildar, Khanna. The Collector finally appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar on 9.12.2009. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before Commissioner, who remanded the case back on 29.7.2010. As per the Commissioner, the candidature of the petitioner was wrongly ignored. Respondent No.4 thereafter filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, who, as alleged, without calling for record, allowed the appeal of respondent No.4 and setaside the order passed by the Commissioner. The petitioner accordingly has filed this petition to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 2. As per counsel for the petitioner, what has primarily weighed against the petitioner is that he had not informed the respondent authority about the death of his father and, thus, the process of filling up the vacancy could only be initiated on 15.5.2009, after almost 15 years. To rebut this, counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the fact that process in fact was initiated in the year 1990/1991 only but somehow or the other it got delayed and finally the appointment was made in the year 2009 only. In this regard, reference is made to some of the orders passed by various authorities indicating that the process was initiated. Counsel further contends that the Financial Commissioner as well as the Collector failed to apply themselves to these relevant facts in the case. As per the counsel, official respondents ignored the hereditary claim of the petitioner as well as the fact that he had been a Sarbrah Lambardar for number of years. 3. I have perused the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. One of the grounds held against the petitioner indeed is that because of delay on his part, the process of appointment was delayed and could be commenced after 15 years. 3. I have perused the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. One of the grounds held against the petitioner indeed is that because of delay on his part, the process of appointment was delayed and could be commenced after 15 years. If that had been the only ground with the Financial Commissioner to uphold the order passed by the Collector and to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner, the same could have required consideration from that angle. 4. Counsel for respondent No.4 still maintains that the process could be initiated only in the year 2006. I do not think there is any need to further go into this aspect. The Financial Commissioner otherwise also found that respondent No.4 was meritorious, he being more education, younger in age. The plea that the petitioner was a Sarbrah Lambardar and had a hereditary claim was rightly not considered relevant. Whatever may be the situation, the fact remains that the petitioner could act as a Sarbrah Lambardar only due to the delay either on initiation of process or for appointment of Lambardar. That in my view should not give any advantage in favour of the petitioner. Otherwise, the Collector had exercised his choice in appointing respondent No.4. The Financial Commissioner is justified in saying that unless such choice is perverse or arbitrary, it would not call for any interference. The Commissioner accordingly was not justified in interfering in the choice exercised by the Collector. 5. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction and would dismiss the writ petition. ---------0.B.S.0------------