ORDER 1. With consent heard finally. 2. The matter pertains to appointment of Pujari. Vide order dated 4.2.2014, Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1, remanded the matter back to the SDO and set aside the order dated 29.9.2012 passed by the SDO as well as the order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Gwalior. Through this petition preferred under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, petitioner tried to assail finding of impugned order dated 4.2.2014 (Annexure P-1). 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, authority below has caused illegality and arbitrariness in passing impugned order because he was appointed as Pujari by the SDO vide order dated 29.9.2012 and the authority below has ignored this fact that before SDO, respondent No. 1 appeared but could not lead evidence to establish his claim. Therefore, the order suffers from perversity. Report was called from Naib Tahsildar and the Revenue Inspector and on the basis of report submitted by these authorities, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties, reasoned order has been passed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. According to him, by the effect of order dated 27.1.2001 authority to appoint Pujari is given to the concerned Gram Sabha of the concerned area, therefore, SDO erred in passing the impugned order. Similarly under section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 remedy of revision is available to the petitioner, therefore, on the basis of alternative remedy, petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. According to learned counsel for the respondents/State, matter has been remanded back for fresh consideration, therefore, it is not a case against the petitioner perse but in the interest of justice both the parties have opportunity to submit their claim. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. This is the matter of appointment of Pujari, with growing stretches of the land ambitions of the people to master it also grew and result is the instant litigation. Here, petitioner was appointed as Pujari by the SDO vide order dated 29.9.2012. As per submission of respondent No. 1, he was also working as Pujari of temple because he was appointed vide order dated 10.5.1995 and his appointment was confirmed by the civil Court also. Here, petitioner was appointed as Pujari by the SDO vide order dated 29.9.2012. As per submission of respondent No. 1, he was also working as Pujari of temple because he was appointed vide order dated 10.5.1995 and his appointment was confirmed by the civil Court also. SDO has initiated proceeding for appointment only on the basis of application given by the petitioner and without removing earlier Pujari, petitioner was appointed. No notice was published by the authority before taking appointment procedure. All these entries were considered by the appellate Court and thereafter impugned order has been passed. The matter has been remanded back to the SDO for ensuring fair and transparent procedure in appointment of Pujari. No thing arbitrariness or illegality has been caused in passing the impugned order. Petitioner is also at liberty to take his claim before SDO. Once the order is appointed illegally, cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, Division Bench of this Court in the matter Anant Singh and another v. Govind and others, [1999 RN 99], has held that against the order of remand no writ petition is maintainable. Said mandate is applicable in the present fact situation of the case because remand order has been passed which does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. He is at liberty to put his claim before the SDO. No violation of fundamental or legal right is apparent on record. Similarly no jurisdictional error or impropriety has been caused by the impugned order. Petition is dismissed.