JUDGMENT AJAI LAMBA, J. 1. District Collector, Kapurthala, directed appointment of petitioner-Harjinder Singh as Lambardar for Village Majorwal, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, vide order dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure P-1). Respondent No.4-Mohinder Singh carried an appeal. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide order dated 18.10.2007 (Annexure P-4), remanded the case to District Collector for fresh adjudication, on the ground that respondent No.4 is more educated than the petitioner and, therefore, the said criteria should be taken into account before taking decision in regard to appointment of Lambardar. 2. The petitioner carried a revision before the Financial Commissioner. Order passed by the Commissioner has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-8). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Commissioner, as appellate authority, could have assessed the comparative merit of the candidates and taken a decision in regard to appointment of the petitioner or respondent No.4. The order of remand would not serve any purpose, in law. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that respondent No.4 is more educated, which is a relevant criteria to be considered at the time of appointment of a Lambardar. The said aspect has been ignored by the Collector, insomuch as, only the fact that the petitioner is a progressive farmer, has been taken into account. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Education, land holding, clean record, service to the community/State, popularity in society, etc., are the relevant criterias to be taken into account, as has been provided under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. While passing order dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure P-1), the District Collector has taken into account the fact that the petitioner is a progressive farmer. The education and other aspects have not been considered. 7. Be that as it may, the Commissioner being the appellate authority, finding the order passed by the Collector to be dehors the rules; based on immaterial facts and in ignorance of relevant criteria, could have taken into account the comparative merit and demerits of the candidates and taken a decision. 8. The petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent that orders (Annexures P-4 and P-8) are hereby quashed. 8. The petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent that orders (Annexures P-4 and P-8) are hereby quashed. The case is remanded to Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar to take a decision after taking into account the relevant criteria, as provided under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, and pass orders, as required by law. 9. The petitioner and respondent No.4, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 11.5.2011. 10. Copy of the order be given under the signatures of the Bench Secretary.