ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed against orders dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division. 2. Facts in brief are that applications were invited for filling up the vacant post of Lambardar in village Nogawan Jagir by conducting drum-beat in the village and three applications were received. The case was fixed for Naksha Lambardari for 3.11.2005. In the meantime, the petitioner also submitted his application for appointment of Lambardar on 20.10.2005. But the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Jagadhri vide order dated 1.2.2006 being time barred. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jagadhri who remanded the same back to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Jagadhri vide order dated 16.5.2006 with the direction that fresh inquiry be conducted. Respondent No.1 filed revision petition in the Court of Collector, Yamuna Nagar against order dated 16.5.2006 who upheld the orders passed by the Assistant Collector’ 1st Grade and remanded the case vide order dated 28.11.2006 with the directions to conduct fresh munadi. Respondent No.1 preferred revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division who accepted the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the Collector. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Assistant Collector IInd Grade has not mentioned anything that any munadi was conducted in the village. He dismissed the application of the petitioner illegally, arbitrarily as there is a delay of merely 9 days in submitting the application and no munadi was conducted. The Roznamcha has neither been attested nor verified by the village Chowkidar who carried out the munadi and same does not have the signatures or thumb impression of the respectables of the village. Whereas it was specifically directed by the Teshildar himself that the Munadi be conducted in the presence of the people of the village but nothing has been mentioned in the report that in whose presence the Munadi was conducted. Thus, the munadi was not conducted as per prescribed procedure. He also referred to decisions of Financial Commissioners of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh in this connection who held that at the time of filling up the post of Lambardar proper mustri munadi should be done so that applications are submitted by all who are popular in the village and want to apply. He also referred to decisions of Financial Commissioners of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh in this connection who held that at the time of filling up the post of Lambardar proper mustri munadi should be done so that applications are submitted by all who are popular in the village and want to apply. The learned Collector has rightly held that the munadi has not been done as per the proper procedure. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for other respondents has contended that the munadi was conducted as per the proper procedure. 5. After going through the record carefully, I am of the view that no prejudice is caused to any candidate if fresh Munadi is got done in the village. I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by Collector, Yamuna Nagar. Accordingly, order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner are set aside and the revision petition is accepted. Announced. ----------------------