IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17209 of 2009 RAJESH KUMAR, son of Shri Raghunath Singh, resident of Village-Kothra, P.O.-Kothra, Via- Baheri, P.S. Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga… ....Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna, 2. The Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur, 3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Darbhanga Postal Division, Darbhanga, 4. The Circle Officer, Baheri Block, P.O.-Baheri, Darbhanga, 5. Shri Ram Prasad Mandal, GDSBPM, Kothra, B.O.P.O.- Kothra, Via-Baheri, P.S.-Hayaghat, District-Darbhanga…. …..Respondents ………… For the Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Bose, Sr. Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Central Govt. Counsel For Respondent No.5 : M/s. Umesh Narayan Dubey & S.K. Bariar, Advocates For the State : Ms. Parinita Rai, JC to G.P- VII (Dhurjati Kr. Prasad) ………… 7 19.04.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner is competing with private respondent No.5, Sri Ram Prasad Mandal for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at EDBO Kothra in the District of Darbhanga. In the year 1997, respondent No.5 was selected in preference to the petitioner and that the selection was challenged by the petitioner. Earlier the Tribunal disposed 2 of an OA filed by the petitioner and remanded the matter for passing of a fresh order. The concerned authority has passed the fresh order on 13.03.2003 contained in Annexure 3. Thereafter, the present OA - 516/03 has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 14.10.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent enquires have shown that the petitioner had got some lands in his own name on account of family partition and mutation and that the one document produced by the petitioner at the time of verification of the claim, a rent receipt should have been treated as sufficient proof of his having landed property exclusively in his own name. He has also raised objection against the order dated 13.03.2003 on the ground that it has been passed without complying with the order of CAT and without making necessary verification from the Circle Officer. The selection of the present nature was required to be made on the basis of conditions which have been mentioned by the learned Tribunal in Paragraph 11 of its order, contained in Annexure-1. The discussion of facts made in Paragraphs 13 and 19 of the said impugned order shows that the claim of respondent No.5 was found 3 superior on several other parameters. A rent receipt by itself cannot show title in any land and no other document being produced by the petitioner till the date of verification, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sanjay-II (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)