JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.:- Petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting-aside orders, Annexures P10, P8 & P6 whereby fresh proclamation for appointment to post of Lambardar of village Badal has been ordered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders. He submits that candidature of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that a criminal case under section 406 IPC was registered against him. According to him, authorities below ignored from consideration the fact that said proceedings have already been withdrawn by the State Government vide order dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure P-6/A). According to him, authorities below have committed a grave error while initiating the process afresh for appointment. He submits that impugned orders are unsustainable and, thus, deserve to be set-aside. 3. Learned State counsel submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned orders. Same are sustainable. 4. Heard. 5. After the death of Lambardar of village Badal, process for fresh appointment was initiated. After considering relative merit of candidates, respondent no. 6 was initially appointed by Collector vide order dated 13.07.2010. Said order was challenged before Commissioner, Hisar Division. The authority found respondent no. 6 ineligible for appointment as Lambardar as he was a defaulter having failed to discharge his liability towards the bank. It, thus remanded the case to Collector for decision afresh after taking into consideration relevant facts. In compliance of remand order, Collector reconsidered the issue and ordered fresh proclamation as both the candidates were ineligible for the post. Aggrieved, petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 preferred appeals before the Commissioner, Hisar Division. Said appeals were clubbed together. Vide order dated 03.06.2011, Commissioner, Hisar Division dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of Collector. Said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the revisional authority. Aggrieved, present petition has been filed. 6. It is evident that Collector initially appointed respondent no. 6 as Lambardar after following due process. When the matter came up before the Commissioner, he found respondent no. 6 ineligible for the post of Lambardar. He, thus, remanded the case to Collector for decision afresh. Collector vide his order dated 01.03.2011 found both the candidates ineligible and ordered fresh proclamation. Said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate and revisional authorities. I find no infirmity with the orders passed. In my considered view orders passed by the authorities below do not suffer from any perversity. He, thus, remanded the case to Collector for decision afresh. Collector vide his order dated 01.03.2011 found both the candidates ineligible and ordered fresh proclamation. Said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate and revisional authorities. I find no infirmity with the orders passed. In my considered view orders passed by the authorities below do not suffer from any perversity. No interference in writ jurisdiction is called for. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------