JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: - The present appeal lays challenge to order dated 01.11.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition filed by Gurdial Singh, respondent No. 4 has been allowed and order passed by the District Collector in regard to appointment of Gurdial Singh as Lambardar of village Mari Bhuchhian, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, has been upheld. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the District Collector passed a cryptic order, arbitrarily holding respondent No. 4 Gurdial Singh suitable and fit to be appointed as Lambardar of the village. It is submitted that even if the decision of the District Collector is primarily administrative in nature, he cannot be allowed to pass an order, which smacks of arbitrariness and is whimsical. The District Collector failed to take into consideration that the appellant is more meritorious as compared to respondent Gurdial Singh, therefore, there was no reason for the District Collector to held in favour of respondent No. 4 in preference to the appellant. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have rightly held that the appellant is the best choice out of the contesting contenders and, therefore, ordered for appointment of the appellant as Lambardar of the village. The learned Single Judge committed a grave error while setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, without correctly appreciating that the order of the District Collector had rightly been set aside in appeal. 3. We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the records and find no reason to interfere. 4. The order of the District Collector in regard to appointment of lambardar of the village is primarily administrative in nature. The perception as to merits of the candidates, their fitness and suitability vary from person to person and, therefore, from court to court. As per the undisputed position of law, the choice of the District Collector is to be honoured, until it suffers from patent illegality, perversity or is violative of any statutory provision. The Commissioner, while setting aside the order of the District Collector, did not point out any patent error or illegality in the order of the District Collector as would justify interference. The Commissioner cannot be permitted to substitute his own perception as to the merits of contesting candidates. The selected candidate is an ex-serviceman and there was no complaint of any nature whatsoever against him. The Commissioner cannot be permitted to substitute his own perception as to the merits of contesting candidates. The selected candidate is an ex-serviceman and there was no complaint of any nature whatsoever against him. Counsel for the appellant failed to point out any fact, which can stand in the way of the selected candidate to become eligible and suitable to hold the post of village headman. Even if two views are possible on appraisal of merits of the parties, the one taken by the Collector is to be upheld. In this view of the matter, the appellant cannot be permitted to contend that as he has better merit viz-a-viz the selected candidate, he can be substituted as a choice of the Court. Learned Single Judge rightly set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner while restoring legal and valid order, passed by the District Collector, Gurdaspur. We find no error of jurisdiction or of law in the impugned order as would call for interference. 5. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------