JUDGMENT S. S. Sidhu I.A.S. — Shri Mukhtiar Singh petitioner has filed this review petition against the order dated 18-11-1988 passed by our learned predecessor, Shri Attar Singh. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the Sub-Divisional Collector, Amb, appointed Shri Mukhtiar Singh, petitioner as Lambardar of village Loharli, Tehsii Amb, District Una, to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of Shri Roop Singh, Lambardar, vide his order dated 1-5-1986. After the appointment of Shri Mukhtiar Singh as Lambardar, some people represented to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Una District, who vide his letter No. 1287/Reader dated 9-7-1986 requested the Financial Commissioner for reviewing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Amb and remanding the case for providing fresh opportunity to the interested candidates Our learned predecessor heard the parties and remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Una for de novo enquiries and decision afresh after affording due opportunity of being heard to the interested candidates Feeling aggrieved by this order, Shri Mukhtiar Singh filed the present review petition, which was dismissed in default on 18-6-1991 by our learned predecessor, Shri P. T Wangdi Feeling aggrieved by this order, Shri Mukhtiar Singh, petitioner filed an application for restoration of review petition No 1/89, which was not allowed- by our order dated 20-1-1992. Feeling dis-satisfied with the orders for dismissing the review petition, in default and for not allowing the application for restoration, the petitioner approached the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, who set aside the orders dated 18-6-1991 and 20-1-1992 pasted by this Court and restored the review petition vide their judgment dated 6-5-1992. They further directed that the review petition be disposed of on merits within four months This is in accordance with the directions of the Honble High Court that this review petition was heard. 3. We heard Shri Trilok Chauhan, Advocate, Counsel for the peti tioner, Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Shri Ravinder Sharma, District Attorney (Revenue), who appeared on behalf of the State and also Shri Sadhu Ram, who was a candidate for the post of Lambardar. We have also gone through the record of the case very carefully. 3. We heard Shri Trilok Chauhan, Advocate, Counsel for the peti tioner, Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Shri Ravinder Sharma, District Attorney (Revenue), who appeared on behalf of the State and also Shri Sadhu Ram, who was a candidate for the post of Lambardar. We have also gone through the record of the case very carefully. The main ground, which appears to have pre\ail with our learned predecessor in remanding the case to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Una District, for de novo inquiry and decision afresh, was that proper procedure had not been followed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Amb, for the appointment of Lambardar The learned Collector, Una District, had also mentioned that proper proclamation inviting applications was so as to give an opportunity to the other candidates to apply for the post of Lambardar. It becomes quite clear from the perusal of copy of Rapat Roznamcha No. 285 dated 11-2-1986, photo copy of which is available on the record, that a proclama tion was issued by Munnadi through chowkidar, Shri Sohan Singh informing the interested persons to apply in writing for the post of Lambardar, which had fallen vacant on account of death of Shri Roop Singh, Lambardar. Last date for filing such applications was 22-2-1986. It was as a result of this proclamation that the present petitioner, Shri Mukhtiar Singh and another candidate Shri Sadhu Ram applied for the appointment as Lambardar of village Loharli. The claim of Shri Sadhu Ram was considered by the Tehsildar but was found unfit since he was a defaulter in the payment of dues of Co-operative Society This fact is supported by a photo copy of the award made by the Arbitrator under section 73 of the Himachal Pradesh Co operative Societies Act, 1963 against Shri Sadhu Ram. 4. In view of the position stated above, we find no irregularity in the order dated 1-5-1986 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Amb and as such there was no need to accept the recommendations of the learned District Collector, Una for setting aside the same. Accordingly, we proceed to review the order dated 18-11-1988 passed by our learned predecessor for remanding the case to the Collector, Una for de novo inquiry. As a result, the order dated 1-5-1986 of the Sub-Divisional Collector Ambp is upheld. To be communicated. Order upheld.