JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: - The appellant prays for setting aside order dated 27.08.2012, dismissing his writ petition and upholding the appointment of Jagraj Singh, respondent No. 4 as Harijan Lambardar of village Chand Nawan, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Balwinder Singh was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector, Moga on 21.05.2008 The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, in appeal, set aside the order of the Collector, without recording any finding that the order, passed by the Collector suffers from any error, infirmity much less illegality. The Financial Commissioner affirmed the order, passed by the Commissioner, without taking into consideration that the complaint filed against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short, ‘the 1881 Act’) had already been withdrawn and the appellant had been discharged in those proceedings. 3. We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order and the orders passed by revenue authorities. 4. Apart from the fact that the appeal is barred by limitation, counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any error of jurisdiction or of law in the order dismissing his writ petition. The appellant was appointed to the post of Harijan Lambardar on 21.05.2008 when criminal proceedings for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the 1881 Act were already pending against him. The relevant date for consideration of the merits and demerits of contesting candidates, is the date on which, the Collector appreciates the respective merits and takes a decision with regard to appointment of a particular candidate to the post of Lambardar. Admittedly, on 21.05.2008, the appellant was facing a criminal charge for committing an offence punishable under section 138 of the 1881 Act as he was summoned by the Court of Magistrate, vide order dated 23.04.2008. The Collector failed to take into consideration that as the appellant is facing a criminal charge, he is not fit to be appointed as a Headman of the village. The Commissioner, rightly discerned this error and rectified it by setting aside the choice of the Collector and holding in favour of the other contesting candidate, Jagraj Singh, who enjoys a clean record. The order passed by the Commissioner was rightly upheld by the Financial Commissioner. The Commissioner, rightly discerned this error and rectified it by setting aside the choice of the Collector and holding in favour of the other contesting candidate, Jagraj Singh, who enjoys a clean record. The order passed by the Commissioner was rightly upheld by the Financial Commissioner. The argument that the complaint has been withdrawn is irrelevant as on the relevant date, the appellant was facing criminal proceedings. 5. Invariably, the choice of the Collector is to be treated as final but this rule is not inflexible. If the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to set aside an order passed by the Collector albeit the fact that the Collector has not taken into consideration those factors which require appreciation as per Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1887 or he has taken into consideration irrelevant or extraneous factors, the remedy of appeal would be rendered nugatory. As the Commissioner has noticed a grave error in the decision of the Collector, who has failed to take into consideration the pendency of criminal proceedings against the appellant, the decision of the Commissioner, setting aside the appointment of appellant as a headman of the village, cannot be faulted. 6. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------