1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-Abdul Wahid, the petitioner herein, was appointed a temporary Lambardar of Cliak No. 157/P, Tehsil 5adiqabad, on its initial creation. Subsequently, Dhal Bachh was taken away from him by the Collector on the 25th of January 1964, on account of his absence from the Chak and persistent mis--behaviour. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Commissioner against that order, which was dismissed, but a direction was given that a permanent Lambardar of the Chak be appointed. After the necessary formalities a proclamation was issued for the appoint--ment of a permanent Lambardar for the Chak, and one, Mahmood Ahmad, only filed an application for being appointed as the perma--nent Lambardar. The Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated the 18th of January 1961, appointed Mahmood Ahmad aforesaid as the permanent Lambardar, as no other contestant was in the field. Mahmood Ahmad was duly recommended by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadiqabad, and the field staff' was also satisfied with his work, which he had put in as a temporary Lambardar. In considering the merits of Mahmood Ahmad, the Collector also took note of the fact that he was a Matriculate and that the police had commended his conduct. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Collector appointing Mahmood Ahmad as a Lambardar, which was dismissed followed by a revision to the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which has been rejected; hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. The Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue rejected the petitioner's appeal and revision respectively on the ground that he had sought to challenge the appointment of Mahmood Ahmad as permanent Lambardar almost 4 years after that appointment was made in 1965. The High Court has refused to interfere in the discretion exercised by the relevant authorities, and rightly so.
3. Apart from the question of limitation in pursuing. His remedies, the matter of appointment of a Lambardar is essentially and the petitioner could not lay any an administrative measure, a claim to that office as of right, which could be competently agitated in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
4. The matter does not call for our interference. The petition is dismissed.