JUDGMENT SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (C.W.P. No.5282 of 2012) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 01.06.2011 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab, confirming the orders of the Commissioner as well as Collector in appointing respondent No.5-Bhupinder Singh as Lambardar of village Rajpur Bhaian, has been dismissed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the Financial Commissioner, Commissioner as well as the Collector. 3. In this case, the District Collector appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village, after finding him more meritorious than the appellant, i.e., he was younger in age, owns more land in the village, a graduate, son of the deceased Lambardar and ex-serviceman having rendered service to Indian Navy, whereas the appellant was older in age and was Matriculate pass. The choice of the Collector in appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village was upheld by the Commissioner in appeal vide order dated 04.01.2006 (Annexure P-6). Normally, the Financial Commissioner does not interfere in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, particularly when choice of the Collector has been affirmed by the Commissioner, and when there is no perversity or gross illegality in the appointment of Lambardar. Since in the present case, without any justification, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure P-8) had interfered and set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, this Court vide order dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed in C.W.P. No.1301 of 2008 set aside the said order of the Financial Commissioner and remanded the case to the Financial Commissioner to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law. After the remand, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 01.06.2011 (Annexure P-11) came to the conclusion that the District Collector had rightly appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village being meritorious and suitable candidate. It was further held that his name was also recommended by all the revenue officers. Thus, finding no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the District Collector in appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar, the said order was confirmed by the Financial Commissioner. 4. It was further held that his name was also recommended by all the revenue officers. Thus, finding no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the District Collector in appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar, the said order was confirmed by the Financial Commissioner. 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the said order of the Financial Commissioner. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the facts of this case and the Financial Commissioner after the remand did not consider the case in right perspective and mechanically affirmed the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. We do not find any force in the said contention of the learned counsel. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that once after the remand, the appellant had been granted ample opportunity to raise all the pleas before the Financial Commissioner, then the question of merit having not been considered by the Collector and Commissioner, does not arise. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act have found respondent No.5 more meritorious being younger in age; is graduate; has rendered service to the nation and is also son of deceased Lambardar, whereas the appellant is older in age and matriculate pass. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not controvert the said factual position. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. No merits. Dismissed.