JUDGMENT The petitioner was initially appointed as Shikshakarmi. This appointment was for the session 1995-96. After this the petitioner was reappointed. This was for the session 1996-97. This reappointment was challenged by preferring a petition be four the Collector. The order passed by the Collector is Annexure P-5. The matter was taken before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior. An order came to be passed by the commissioner. This is Annoxure P-1. The decision, annexures P-1 and P-5, went against the petitioner. This was basically on the ground that the petitioner was not the resident of local area. It be also seen that the respondent authority came to the conclusion that respondent No. 5 is more meritorious. This aspect of the matter was kept in view and a direction was given that respondent No. 5 be given appointment. It is this order, which is being challenged in this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the period for which the appointment was to anure has since come to an end and, therefore, this writ petition is rendered infructuous. It be seen that so far as the requirement as to residence is concerned that was done way back when further instructions were given by the State Government on 29th September 1994. Therefore, the petitioner could not be debarred. Even otherwise at present there is no disqualification on the basis of residence. The further question which is required to be gone into is as to whether the appellate authority could give a direction that a particular person be given the job or according to the learned counsel all that could be done was that the matter should have been remanded to the appointing authority leaving it to consider respective merits of the candidates. For this· reliance is placed on the decision given by the Supreme Court, reported as (1997) 4 SCC 575 , Durga Devi and others v. State of H.P. It was observed that the comparative merit and suitability of candidate should be left to be determined by the authority, who is basically to deal with the matter. There should not be any judicial reassessment. It be seen that the Collector while dealing with the matter has acted as quasi-judicial authority, therefore, what was said by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned facts would be attracted in the present case. There should not be any judicial reassessment. It be seen that the Collector while dealing with the matter has acted as quasi-judicial authority, therefore, what was said by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned facts would be attracted in the present case. The observations made by the Collector that respondent No. 5 be appointed on the post are, there fore, not in accordance with law. The net result is that the matter would stand remanded to the Janpad Panchayat, who would reconsider the entire matter and pass such order, as may be deemed appropriate. It would take notice of the changed policy and the decision given by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar's case. Till the decision is taken, the person, who is acting as Shikshakarmi would continue to discharge the functions. The Janpad Panchayat would take appropriate decision within a period of six weeks. The period of six weeks would begin from the date copy of the order passed by this Court along with writ petition and annexures is made available to the respondents. Disposed of accordingly.