JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - Instant petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders, Annexure P5 & P6 dated 14.06.2013 & 19.03.2014 respectively whereby case has been remanded to Collector for decision afresh. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. He submits that petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector. On appeal being preferred by respondent no. 4, Commissioner remanded the case to Collector for decision afresh. Same was upheld by Financial Commissioner. According to him, Commissioner & Financial Commissioner have committed a grave error while initiating the process afresh. Impugned orders are unsustainable, thus, deserve to be set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has vehemently opposed the plea. According to him, Commissioner has rightly remanded the case for decision afresh as petitioner applied after expiry of last date fixed for receiving the application. According to him, Collector erred in ignoring this aspect. He contends that petitioner had not submitted his application within the period prescribed. It was, thus, incumbent upon A.C. Grade II to seek permission from the District Collector before entertaining the application. Heard. 4. Brief factual background of the case is that after death of previous incumbent of the post of lambardar, process for filing up the vacant post was initiated. Pursuant to proclamation, petitioner could not apply for the post within the prescribed period. However, later on his application for consideration was allowed by Assistant Collector Grade II. This order was challenged by respondent no. 4 before Collector. Collector rejected the plea vide order dated 13.10.2010. During the process Assistant Collector Grade II recommended the name of petitioner for the post. However, Assistant Collector Grade-I recommended the name of respondent no. 4. After taking into consideration the recommendations and other factors, Collector vide his order dated 04.05.2011 appointed petitioner as Lambardar. Aggrieved, respondent no. 4 preferred appeal before Commissioner, Gurgaon Division who vide his order dated 14.06.2013 remanded the matter to Collector for decision afresh. Said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the revisional authority. Aggrieved, present petition has been filed. 5. It appears that post of Lambardar in village Bachhod fell vacant in 2009. Fresh process was initiated for selection of a new candidate. It is evident that petitioner could not submit his application within the prescribed period after proclamation. Collector did not consider this aspect while appointing petitioner as Lambardar. Aggrieved, present petition has been filed. 5. It appears that post of Lambardar in village Bachhod fell vacant in 2009. Fresh process was initiated for selection of a new candidate. It is evident that petitioner could not submit his application within the prescribed period after proclamation. Collector did not consider this aspect while appointing petitioner as Lambardar. Thus, order was challenged before appellate authority. As petitioner applied after expiry of last date, Commissioner setaside the order of Collector and remanded the case for decision afresh. Said order has been upheld by Financial Commissioner. I find no infirmity with the impugned orders. In my considered view matter has simply been remanded to Collector for fresh adjudication. No interference in writ jurisdiction is called for. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------