THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.22500 and 20422 of 1999 COMMON ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED) W.P.No.22500 of 1999 This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the Order dated 8-4-1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No.65 of 1999. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the post of Branch Post Master, Moillakalva Branch Office, Kadapa District fell vacant, as a result of promotion of the regular incumbent on 11-9-1998. A notification was issued on 16-10-1998 for filling up of the said post. Employment exchange was also intimated about the vacancy. In response to the said notification, 13 applications were received, out of them only 2 were found to be in order and those two candidates were alone eligible for consideration. Since minimum of ‘three effective applications’ were not received, the vacancy was notified again on 21-12-1998. Challenging the same, the respondent herein (Mahaboob Basha) filed the above O.A. The stand of the respondents in the O.A. (petitioners herein) was that there should be at least ‘three effective candidates’ for processing the selection and since only two candidates were found to be eligible, the second notification was issued. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal held that a similar point arose for consideration in O.A.No.1438 of 1998, which was disposed of on 7-4-1999 holding that even if one application from an eligible candidate is received, the notification cannot be cancelled; but, minimum of three applications should be received and even if one of the candidates amongst the three applicants are eligible, the selection should be processed and finalized. Following the said Order, the Tribunal set aside the second notification dated 21-12-1998 and directed the petitioners herein to consider the applications received in response to the first notification dated 16-10-1998. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the instructions of the Regional Office, there should be at least ‘three effective candidates’ for processing the selection and since there were only two eligible candidates for consideration, the second notification was issued on 21-12-1998. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the second notification dated 21-12-1998 is bad in law and ought not to have directed to consider the applications received in pursuance of the first notification dated 16-10-1998. We are afraid, we cannot agree with the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Tribunal rightly held that ‘three effective applications’ means, three applications should be received and even if one of the candidates amongst the three applicants is eligible, the selection should be finalized. Since, in the instant case, in response to the first notification dated 16-10-1998, 13 applications were received, out of which 2 applicants are found to be eligible, the Tribunal rightly set aside the second notification dated 21-12-1998 and directed to consider the applications received in pursuance of the first notification dated 16-10-1998. There is no error or infirmity in the impugned Order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs W.P.No.20422 of 1999 For the reasons mentioned above, this Writ Petition, which is filed by a candidate, who is said to be selected in pursuance of the second notification dated 21-12-1998, is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) June 12, 2008 ____________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) prk