IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 385 of 2000 Between: D.Radhakrishna, S/o. D.Koteswara Rao, Hindu, R/o. Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Postmaster General, Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada - 520 002. 2 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Machilipatnam Divsion, Machilipatnam - 521 001. 3 The Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), Machilipatnam Sub-Division, Machilipatnam. 4 Nandipati Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Somaraju, R/o. Door No. 18-10-3/10, 6th Line, Kedareswarapet, Vijayawada-520 003. 5 Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Rep. by its Dy. Registrar, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Opp: Public Gardens, Hyderabad. .....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 call for records relating to the order of the 5th Respondent dated 13-10-1999 in O.A.1071/99 and quash the same by issuing a Writ in the nature of Ceretiorari or any other order, Writ or Direction and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MENDUBABU RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.RAVINDER The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) The writ petition is filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.No.1071 of 1999, dated 13.10.1999, at the instance of the 4th respondent questioning the selection of the petitioner as Extra Departmental Packer/Mail Carrier at Malkapatnam TSO Branch Office under Machilipatnam Head Post Office. The said post was vacant due to the promotion of the incumbent with effect from 28.1.1999 and the said post is reserved for S.C. category and the said post was notified to the employment exchange on 5.2.1999 and simultaneously open notification was also issued on the same day. The Tribunal by order dated 13.10.1999 directed the official respondents to reconsider all the applications received in response to the notification dated 5.2.1999 and select the most meritorious candidate in accordance with the law without insisting the submission of declaration certificate of income property and till such time a suitable meritorious candidate is posted, the present incumbent shall continue as a provisional ED Packer and accordingly ordered the said O.A. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is continuing in the said post, but the exercise, as directed by the Tribunal, have not been taken up by the respondents and therefore the cause of action survives. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the official respondents. Though notice was served on the 4th respondent, none appears on his behalf. The said post was notified by the employment exchange on 5.2.1999 and simultaneously notification memo No.PF/EDP/MC/ Mal.pet/SO, dated 5.2.1999, was also issued by the 3rd respondent calling for applications from the eligible candidates on or before 8.3.1999. In response to the said notification given to the employment exchange, 20 candidates were sponsored by the employment exchange by 8.2.1999 and all were directed to submit their applications on or before 8.3.1999. 30 candidates were applied pursuant to the open notification and 5 candidates sponsored by the employment exchange were applied to the post out of 20 and thus total 35 applications were received by the Department. Out of 35 applications, 12 candidates belong to category other than S.C to which the post is reserved and below the qualification of S.S.C. 20 candidates were called for verification of original certificates and 17 candidates were attended for verification of certificates on 20.3.1999. Out of 17 candidates 2 persons were not possess the requisite qualification and 15 candidates stood in competition for selection process. It is stated that as per the requirements of notification for applying the said post one must have adequate means of livelihood as per D.Dis.No.DG.Lr.No.17-104/93 ED&Trg. Dated 6.12.1993 and 6 candidates failed to satisfy the condition of adequate means of livelihood and only 5 candidates could not produce the proper income certificates as required by the Department and hence their cases were also not considered and ultimately only 4 candidates who could comply all the conditions stood in the competition, namely, 1. S.Lakshmana Rao, 2. K.Bala-ramesh Babu, 3. D.Radhakrishna and 4. B.Rama Swamy. As the first two candidates were not having sufficient means and they were only attending cooli work and they have no adequate means of livelihood and therefore their case was not considered. As the petitioner secured highest marks in the S.S.C., and also submitted the required adequate means of livelihood certificate, he was selected and appointed in the said post vide proceedings dated 24.3.1999. The 4th respondent was not at all the person who stood in the competition chosen to file the said O.A., and the Central Administrative Tribunal observed that though the 4th respondent has not submitted adequate means of livelihood certificate, he has submitted the income of his father and such certificate is not relevant as per the condition. The Tribunal held that the rule itself is so nebulous and such condition will lead not only malpractice but also undesirable condition and accordingly held that the application of the 4th respondent for non-fulfiling the condition of property income certificate cannot be rejected and some relief has to be given to the 4th respondent in view of that the official respondents were directed to consider all the applications once again pursuant to the notification dated 5.2.1999 and select the most meritorious candidate in accordance with law without insisting the submission of declaration certificate of income. Admittedly, the 4th respondent did not submit the required income certificate issued by the competent authority. He did not mention his present occupation and income from the present occupation as required in columns 8 and 9 of the application and he submitted income certificate relating to his father only. The 4th respondent did not challenge the conditions stipulated in the notification. But, however, the Tribunal has gone into the contentions of the 4th respondent without making any foundation in the application and gave a finding that the condition imposed by the Department with regard to the certificate of income is illegal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has been selected and appointed in accordance with law as per Rules and 4th respondent without questioning the conditions of the notification and without filing the requisite certificate approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal erroneously disposed of the said O.A., as indicated above. Therefore, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1071 of 1999, dated 13.10.1999, is unsustainable and accordingly the said order is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ___________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 24.6.2009 kpr