ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The question is who should be the Lambardar of Village Dhindsa? The original Lambardar died. Proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules by the District Collector, Jalandhar. Out of the several candidates who applied for the post they all withdrew and only two remained, namely, the appellant and the respondent. The Collector decided in favour of the respondent on the ground that his candidature had been recommended by all the lower Revenue Officers. Additionally, it was found that, while the appellant was 28 years old, the respondent was 40 years old and was the owner of a workshop and had remained Surpanch of Village Dhindsa for 10 years. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. The Commissioner was of the view that the respondent should not have been appointed the Lambardar because as Surpanch of the village he would be involved in party politics and would not have the impartiality which was necessary for a Lambardar. It was also held that the respondent had his workshop in another village and therefore would not be easily available in the village itself. On the other hand, the appellant owned 9 marl as of land in the village and also had a tailoring shop in the village. Accordingly, the appointment of the respondent was set aside. 4. The respondent then preferred a further appeal to the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab. Before the Commissioner it was alleged by the respondents counsel that in fact the Commissioner had decided the case in favour of the appellant by a toss/spin of coin and not on merits. It appears from the Financial Commissioners order that counsel for the appellant confirmed this. In the circumstances the order of the Commissioner was set aside and the order of the District Collector appointing the respondent was confirmed. The High Court did not interfere with the reasoning of the Commissioner. 5. The order of the Commissioner does not, ex facie at least, show that it was decided on any arbitrary method such as the spin of a coin. Two reasons were given in the order. The Financial Commissioner did not deal with either of them on merits. If the Financial Commissioner was dissatisfied with the Commissioners reasoning, no doubt it was open to the Financial Commissioner to re-decide the matter on merits. Two reasons were given in the order. The Financial Commissioner did not deal with either of them on merits. If the Financial Commissioner was dissatisfied with the Commissioners reasoning, no doubt it was open to the Financial Commissioner to re-decide the matter on merits. However, the only ground for the Financial Commissioner setting aside the Commissioners order was that it had been decided on the spin of a coin. In the circumstances of the case, that reason was insufficient to set aside the order of the Commissioner. We set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner as well as the decision of the High Court and remand the matter back to the Financial Commissioner for redeciding the issue. 6. The appeal is disposed of.