IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4747 of 2009 Decided on : December 21, 2009 Hitesh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondents No.1 and 2. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) CMP No.8537/2009 Allowed. CWP No.4747/2009 Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8th December, 2009, of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby his Original Application seeking quashing of order of his termination, dated 1st June, 2009, as amended vide order dated 8th June, 2009, has been dismissed. 3. Petitioner and twelve other persons had applied for the post of Gramin Dak Sewa Mail Deliverer, pursuant to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… some advertisement issued by respondent No.2. Petitioner’s score in Matriculation examination was 62%. One of the other twelve candidates had scored 72% marks. His name was Anshul Thakur. Respondent No.2 selected the petitioner, whose score was less than that of Anshul Thakur in the Matriculation examination, and appointed him to the post, on 21st January, 2009. Anshul Thakur’s claim was ignored, because he did not have any immoveable property in the area in which the candidate was to be appointed as Gramin Dak Sewa Mail Deliverer. 4. It appears that a representation was made by Anshul Thakur to the Postmaster General, who accepted the same and ordered fresh selection. Consequently, order dated 1st June, 2009, was issued by respondent No.2 terminating the services of the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the said order by filing an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. His application has been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 8th December, 2009. 5. Learned Tribunal has observed that condition regarding candidate possessing immoveable property in the area, in which he is to be appointed, stood deleted from the relevant instructions, in the year 2003 and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the action of the Postmaster General, in accepting the representation of Anshul Thakur and …3… directing respondent No.2 to terminate the services of the petitioner. 6. It is not in dispute before us that possession of immoveable property was not a condition for appointment to the post and that the said condition ceased to be a part of the eligibility criteria, in the year 2003, when the said condition was deleted. Thus, we see no merit in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( Surjit Singh ), J December 21, 2009(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J