RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2020 by which respondent No.4 remanded the case back to respondent No.5 for afresh consideration of the applications for the appointment of Lambardar whereas the petitioner being eligible candidate for the said post duly recommended by then respondent No.5 vide his report dated 26.11.2020, impugned report dated 18.01.2021 by which respondent No.5 under undue influence forwarded name of respondent No.6 cancelling the name of petitioner for the post of Lambardar whereas, respondent No.6 is not eligible candidate for the said post being the son of dismissed Lambardar and being back door entry, the impugned report dated 29.04.2021 by which respondent No.4 recommended the name of respondent No.6 to respondent No.3, further impugned order dated 01.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3, who in appeal without considering the facts, remanded back the case for re-initiating the proceeding afresh, impugned order dated 21.10.2022 passed by respondent No.2, who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by passing non-speaking order and impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by respondent No.1, who dismissed the revision petition in limine without applying judicious mind. 2. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that to fill up the post of Lambardar in Village Kharar, mustri munadi was conducted for inviting the applications from the willing eligible persons as the earlier Lambardar namely, Gulzar Singh son of Late Sardara Singh was dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2018. It is submitted that after getting mustri munadi, applications from the willing persons were invited on or before 02.07.2020. In response to mustri munadi, petitioner and respondent No.6 filed their applications. The police verification of the candidates were done. He has submitted that after mustri munadi, applications from three candidates were received namely, Sukhjinder Pal Singh, Davinder Singh and Krishan Murari. However, he submits that after last date of submission of application for the said post an application was received from respondent No.6 namely, Amanjeet Singh on 02.07.2020 by playing fraud and misrepresentation. He has submitted that the application of respondent No.6 was allowed to be filed before respondent No.4 ignoring the fact that it was filed after the cut off date. He submits that respondent No.6 is the son of earlier Lambardar, Gulzar Singh, who was dismissed from the post of Lambardar. He has submitted that the application of respondent No.6 was allowed to be filed before respondent No.4 ignoring the fact that it was filed after the cut off date. He submits that respondent No.6 is the son of earlier Lambardar, Gulzar Singh, who was dismissed from the post of Lambardar. He has submitted that vide his report respondent No.5 i.e. Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, Grade-II, Kharar dated 26.11.2020, respondent No.5 has rightly not considered the application of respondent No.6 as it was filed after  the cut off date and thus, vide report dated 26.11.2020, he recommended the name of the petitioner i.e. Sukhjinderpal Singh for the post of Lambardar to respondent No.4 however, respondent No.6 filed the application before respondent No.4 on the ground that his application was not considered by the Court below and he has not been heard and as such the same was illegal. He has submitted that though in the earlier circumstances, respondent No.3 vide his order dated 02.12.2020 had appointed Lambardar to a person of adjacent Village namely Jandpur Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, who was the only candidate during COVID-19 whereas in the present case, respondent No.3 rejected the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner and illegally directed for re-initiation of fresh proceedings for appointment of Lambardar vide order dated 01.06.2022. He submits that aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Roopnagar. However, learned Divisional Commissioner without assigning any reason has dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 21.10.2022. He submits that the order passed by learned Appellate Court dated 21.10.2022 is totally cryptic and thus, the same is without application of judicious mind. He further submits that aggrieved by the order of learned Appellate Court, the petitioner filed revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner. However, learned Financial Commissioner also failed to appreciate the inter se merits of the petitioner and thus, rejected the revision filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 04.05.2023. It is submitted that the learned Collector and thereafter the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have fallen in error in passing the impugned orders which are neither based on the factual aspects nor on the basis of the law settled and thus, deserves to be set aside. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is submitted that the learned Collector and thereafter the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have fallen in error in passing the impugned orders which are neither based on the factual aspects nor on the basis of the law settled and thus, deserves to be set aside. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is evident from the record that the sitting Lambardar of the Village namely, Gulzar Singh was dismissed by the Collector vide his order dated 17.07.2018 and thus, the procedure for filling up the post of Lambardar was initiated. The mustri munadi was conducted in the Village for inviting the applications. In pursuance to the same, the applications were received from the three candidates namely, Sukhjinder Pal Singh, Davinder Singh and Krishan Murari. After having received the applications from the candidates, their inter se merits were analyzed and recommendations were made to the Collector for the appointment. On appreciation of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, Tehsil Kharar found four candidates namely Sukhjinder Pal Singh, Krishan Murari, Davinder Singh and Amanjeet Singh, however, two candidates namely, Krishan Murari and Davinder Singh withdrew their respective applications. Thus, only two candidates remained in the fray i.e. Amanjeet Singh and Sukhjinderpal Singh. In pursuance to the analysis of their inter se merits, it is found that Amanjeet Singh was 33 years of age and was BA pass. He had 2 acres land in the Village whereas Sukhjinderpal Singh was 41 years of age who had passed BA and MA Part-1. Besides this, he had 01 acre of land in Kharar. On hearing counsel for both the petitioner and respondent No.6 and perusing the record, it was found by the Collector that due to the ongoing pandemic, the applications received in pursuance to the mustri munadi were not sufficient keeping in view the total population of the area. Thus, it was felt that in the interest of justice, fresh process should be started so as to provide free and fair opportunity to all the willing candidates as the same suffered a set back on the earlier occasion due to Covid-19 and thus, vide order dated 01.06.2022, the Collector directed for reinitiating the proceedings afresh. This order was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner but he failed before the Appellate Court. This order was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner but he failed before the Appellate Court. It was further assailed by him by way of filing the revision before the Revisional Authority however, he failed to succeed before the Revisional Court as well. On the careful analysis, it is obvious that the procedure which was initiated for the appointment of Lambardar was during the Pandemic. There is no gainsaying that due to the prevailing situation, at that time, all the willing persons could not have come forward for filing their applications in pursuance to mustri munadi. Thus, there remained only two candidates in the fray for the appointment of the Lambardar which was obviously due to adverse effect of Covid-19. The contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner were appreciated by the Appellate Court and thereafter by the Revisional Court and were in agreement with the decision taken by the Collector in re-initiating the process of the Lambardar. This Court in its considered opinion do not find any perversity in the findings arrived at by the Authorities below. In the facts and circumstances, the decision meets the ends of justice and thus, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. The Collector is directed to initiate the fresh procedure and conclude the same expeditiously. Petition dismissed.