JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: (Oral) - Surjit Singh, Lambardar has expired on 12.9.2009 and the candidates submitted their applications for being considered for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Amrik Singh and Kartar Singh withdrew their names in favour of Sukhwinderjit Singh. On 27.4.2010, Collector Hoshiarpur appointed Sukhwidnerjit Singh, respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. 2. The petitioners appealed against the order before the Commissioner (Appeal) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 2.8.2010. Reference is made to some affidavits submitted by residents of the village Gilzian to say that respondent No.4 was not permanently residing in the village and was residing in some foreign country. Even Kartar Kaur who is stated to be mother of respondent No.4 has filed an affidavit to say that respondent No.4 is not permanent resident of the village. As per the counsel for the respondents, she is his step mother as mother of respondent No.4 had died long ago. Despite this evidence, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 9.2.2011 on the ground that respondent No.4 was meritorious. The petitioner accordingly has impugned this order in this Court in the present writ petition. 3. Notice of motion in this case was issued to ascertain whether the respondent No.4 who was appointed as Lambardar was ordinarily residing in the village, which fact had not been properly considered. On the basis of some affidavits filed by the respondents, which were taken on record, the directions were issued to respondents to produce copy of his passport. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to some of the entries in passport which is shown issued at Hague. These documents may indicate that respondent No.4 may not be ordinarily residing in the village. It is noticed that the issue of respondent No.4 not being an ordinary resident of the village apparently has not been properly considered. It may require detailed examination for the purpose of appointment to the post of Lambardar. 5. Without going into merits of the plea raised by either side, I deem it appropriate to remand this case back to the Commissioner who can consider the issue on the basis of evidence. The parties would be at liberty to substantiate their respective pleas. The Commissioner shall reconsider the entire issue and pass any appropriate order in accordance within law. Without going into merits of the plea raised by either side, I deem it appropriate to remand this case back to the Commissioner who can consider the issue on the basis of evidence. The parties would be at liberty to substantiate their respective pleas. The Commissioner shall reconsider the entire issue and pass any appropriate order in accordance within law. If he decides to continue the appointment of respondent No.4, he would be at liberty to do so and in case he finds that respondent No.4 is not ordinarily resident of the village and that this is relevant for his appointment, he would be at liberty to pass any order on the basis of evidence. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. Let the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 15.10.2012. -------------------