Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Normally, the choice of District Collector is not to be interfered with or lightly to be undone, however, it is nevertheless an appeal which is a continuation of the original proceedings – Held, if the Commissioner on the basis of relative assessment of the candidates had come to a finding to be different from that recorded by the District Collector, then the same is not liable to be interfered with unless it is shown that the same is perverse or erroneous.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2009

Appointment of Lambardar – As a general rule, the choice of the Collector is final -- Appellate and revisional authorities would be entitled to interfere with the choice of the Collector if it is perverse -- However, instead of imposing their own perception on the merits of candidates they should remit the matter to the Collector.

(P&H HC) Decided on 29.05.2007

Appointment of Lambardar – Act confers a statutory duty upon a District Collector to select a candidate for the post of Lambardar -- Choice of a Collector, is generally final, unless shown to be vitiated, for lack of jurisdiction or is held to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious -- Appellate and revisional authorities exercising jurisdiction, under the Act, must not re-evaluate the merits of respective candidates and then seek to impose their perception of the merits of a candidate -- Any interpretation of the jurisdiction of appellate and revisional authorities other than the one assigned above would lead to judicial anarchy and never ending litigation.

(P&H HC) Decided on 08.05.2007

Appointment of Lambardar – Necessary party -- Petitioner himself had withdrawn his candidature for being appointed as Lambardar before the Collector -- He was not a necessary party for being impleaded in appeal filed by the other contestant.

(P&H HC) Decided on 15.05.2006