IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 27588 of 1998 Between: T. Srinivas S/o. Bhoomaiah, Budakurd Villaage and B.O.a/w Bellampalli Adilabad Postal Division, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Superintendent of Post Officer, Adilabad Postal Division, Adilabad. 2 Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Haca Bhavan,Public Gardens, Hyderabad. 3 G. Pochamallu S/o. Ramalingu, selected candidate, Budakurd, a/w Bellampalli, Adilabad Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pleased to issue an appropriate writ in thenature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records and set aside the order in O.A.No. 616/96 dated 1.9.1998 passed by theCentral Administrative Tribunal arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as the Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, Budukhurd, B.O a/w, Bellampalli, Adilabad on regular basis and pass other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VENKANNA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.DAMODAR REDDY A.Rajashekar Reddy, Asst.Solicitor General The Court made the following : W.P.NO. 27588 OF 1998 ORDER: (Per T.Meena Kumari, J) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dt. 1.9.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 616 of 1996. This writ petition was earlier dismissed for default on 26.9.2005 and the said order was recalled and the writ petition was restored to file by an order dt. 18.11.2005. A notification was issued on 13.12.1995 calling for applications for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, Budukhurd B.O. a/w Bellampalli, Adilabad district. The petitioner, 3rd respondent and others applied for the said post. The 3rd respondent was selected, whereas the petitioner was not selected. He filed an application before the Tribunal challenging the selection of 3rd respondent and it was dismissed. Against the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner was appointed as EDBPM, Budakurd on provisional basis on 3.7.1992. A notification was issued on 18.8.1992 by the 1st respondent for filling up the post on regular basis. As there was no response to the notification, another notification was issued on 20.4.1993. This time also none of the candidates was found eligible and the petitioner submitted income certificate in the name of his father and therefore the vacancy was re-notified on 17.1.1994 and 17.3.1994. The minimum educational qualification to the post was revised from 7th standard to SSC with effect from 1.4.1993. The petitioner passed SSC only in October, 1995 and he was found not eligible as he was not possessing minimum educational qualification of SSC and independent income and property in his name. The vacancy was finally re-notified on 13.12.1995. Since the petitioner had produced property certificate in the name of his father, he was found not eligible and the 3rd respondent was selected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was meritorious than the 3rd respondent who was selected. The petitioner has got 399 marks in the SSC, whereas the 3rd respondent has got 268 marks. He also submits the petitioner has produced property certificate and also valuation certificate showing that he is owning a house, which was worth of Rs.11,200/-. The petitioner has also submitted an income certificate of his father. The Tribunal has held that the details of the annexures submitted by the petitioner along with the application do not indicate that he had enclosed property certificate along with his application, but there is a certificate captioned as “valuation certificate” enclosed to his application. The valuation certificate was signed by a Sarpanch and not by Mandal revenue Officer and this cannot be treated as a valid certificate in view of the fact the certificate was not signed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and dismissed the application. But this is not correct as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the valuation certificate was also signed by the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as Sarpanch. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has produced instructions received from 1st respondent on 31.3.2008 stating that there is no vacancy in the Budakurd B.O. a/w Bellampalli S.O. at present and however there is a vacancy of GDSBPM at Janakapur B.O. a/w Bellampalli S.O. enarly 18 KMs. Away from Budakurd B.O. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already produced property certificate as required by the notification issued by the 1st respondent and the petitioner was meritorious than the 3rd respondent and as there is a vacancy of GDSBPM at Janakapur B.O a/w Bellampalli S.O. nearly 18 KMs. away from Budakurd B.O., and the petitioner has served the department from 1992 to 2005, we are of the opinion that the 1st respondent can be directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner without disturbing the selection of the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the 1st respondent to consider the appointment of the petitioner to the post of GDSBPM at Janakapur B.O a/w Bellampalli S.O. nearly 18 KMs. away from Budakurd B.O. within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without insisting for the property certificate. No order as to costs. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J Dt.1.4.2008 Kr ___________________ S. ASHOK KUMAR, J ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Superintendent of Post Officer, Adilabad Postal Division, Adilabad. 2 Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Haca Bhavan,Public Gardens, Hyderabad. .3 2 CCs to Asst. Solicitor General of India, 4. 2CD copies