JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.:- Challenge in the instant case is to order passed by Financial Commissioner whereby he has upheld the appointment of respondent no. 5 as Lambardar of the village. Order has been assailed inter alia on the grounds that Financial Commissioner did not appreciate the controversy in correct perspective. Petitioner was appointed Lambardar by the Collector vide order dated 05.10.2006 (Annexure P-1). On appeal being filed before Commissioner, matter was remanded to verify the genuineness of the B.A. degree of the petitioner. On remand, the Collector found the degree to be genuine but declined to appoint him as Lambardar by taking into account other factors. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Collector could not gone beyond the direction given by the Commissioner in remand order dated 17.09.2008 (Annexure P-3). 2. Plea has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5. According to him, petitioner was involved in a criminal case and had encroached upon the house of Gian Singh, thus, rightly found unsuitable for the post of Lambardar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar vide order dated 05.10.2006 (Annexure P-1). Three appeals were preferred against this order. Same were dismissed on 04.05.2007. On a revision being filed before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab matter was remanded to the Collector to verify genuineness of B.A. degree relied upon by the petitioner. It was mentioned in the order that in case the degree held by the petitioner was found to be genuine, his appointment as Lambardar would be restored. Pursuant to the said order, Collector examined the matter and found the degree to be genuine. However, considering other factors he directed appointment of respondent no. 5 as Lambardar. Petitioner challenged this order before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. Said authority accepted the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Collector. Respondent no. 5 impugned aforesaid order before Financial Commissioner, Punjab. Matter was again remanded by the Financial Commissioner to the authority below for decision afresh after hearing the parties. Vide his order dated 13.08.2012, Commissioner rejected the plea of petitioner and directed appointment of Nachhattar Singh as Lambardar on the ground that petitioner had been in illegal possession of panchayat land and criminal case was registered against him. A review application was also filed before the Commissioner, however, same was dismissed. Vide his order dated 13.08.2012, Commissioner rejected the plea of petitioner and directed appointment of Nachhattar Singh as Lambardar on the ground that petitioner had been in illegal possession of panchayat land and criminal case was registered against him. A review application was also filed before the Commissioner, however, same was dismissed. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred revision petition before Financial Commissioner but remained unsuccessful. Petitioner has, thus, preferred instant petition before this court. It is evident that petitioner was appointed as Lambardar on 05.10.2006 by the Collector. Thereafter, litigation continued as case was remanded to lower authority for decision afresh. A perusal of order dated 17.09.2008 passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab, however, shows that issue was remitted to Collector only to verify genuineness of B.A. degree held by petitioner. Operative part of order reads as under:- “Paramjit Singh’s higher educational qualification is an important factor establishing his merit over the other candidates and therefore any doubt about the genuineness of the defree needs to be removed. I, therefore, remand the case to the Collector Jalandhar. He would specifically look into the genuineness of the degree of Paramjit Singh. His earlier order would be restored if the degree is found to be genuine; otherwise he would pass a fresh order after comparing the merits of all the four candidates. The orders of the Commissioner and the Collector are set-aside to facilitate the enquiry. Parties have been directed to appear before the Collector Jalandhar on 26/11/2008 for further proceedings.” After aforesaid order was passed, matter was examined by Collector. He came to the conclusion that B.A. degree possessed by petitioner was authentic. He, however, proceeded to take other factors into account such as illegal possession of a path in the village. Even for arriving at this finding, no concrete proof was available with the Collector. On appeal being preferred by petitioner before Commissioner, he setaside the order of Collector. However, Financial Commissioner upset the order observing that petitioner had encroached upon certain land and there was a criminal case registered against him. He found that petitioner had more land and was better educated but aforesaid factors cast substantial doubt on his claim. I am of the considered view that these findings of Financial Commissioner are erroneous. Admittedly, plea of encroachment of land and registration of criminal case was never raised after selection was made by the Collector. He found that petitioner had more land and was better educated but aforesaid factors cast substantial doubt on his claim. I am of the considered view that these findings of Financial Commissioner are erroneous. Admittedly, plea of encroachment of land and registration of criminal case was never raised after selection was made by the Collector. Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 17.09.2008, Annexure P3 had remitted the case to Collector merely to consider genuineness of his B.A. degree. After same was established, there was no question of taking into account other factors. Case had been remanded to Collector for decision on a specific issue. He, however, embarked upon a roving inquiry. This was not the intention of the remand order passed by Financial Commissioner. Besides, there being no concrete proof of petitioner having encroached upon a path (rasta) in the village and he having been acquitted in the criminal case registered against him, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner clearly erred in passing orders, Annexures P7, P9 & P10. After process for appointment of Lambardar was initiated, all issues were considered by the Collector. Petitioner was found suitable candidate and his appointment was upheld by appellate authority. Financial Commissioner remanded the case only to verify the authenticity of B.A. degree. There are observations of various authorities that petitioner was more suitable candidate. In the third round of litigation before the Financial Commissioner, he expressed doubts about the credentials of the petitioner and rejected his plea. I find the order unsustainable. Same is hereby set-aside. In order to put an end to the controversy, this court does not deem it fit to remit the case to authorities below for decision afresh. Petitioner would be entitled to continue on the post of Lambardar to which he was appointed vide original order dated 05.10.2006 passed by Collector. ------------------