Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Samrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition, which is directed against the order, dated 10 January, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dismissing the petitioners application in O.A. no. 483 of 1995. 2. The controversy in this case relates to the appointment as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master for the Gopalpur Extra Departmental Post Office. Both the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 were candidates for the post and their names were duly forwarded by the concerned Employment Exchange. The authorities selected and appointed respondent no. 4 against that post. The petitioner, aggrieved by their action, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with his complaint. 3. According to the petitioner he had secured higher marks in the matriculation examination than the respondent no. 4 and therefore, he had a better claim for being selected for appointment. The petitioner had secured 681 out of 900 marks in the matriculation examination whereas the respondent no. 4 had secured 621 out of 900. 4. Both the postal authorities and the respondent no. 4 resisted the petitioners application before the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil another essential criterion, namely, the requirement to have some landed property in the village where the Extra Departmental Branch Post Office is situate. 5. According to the petitioner, after the issuance of the advertisement he had acquired 2 Kathas 10 Dhurs of land through a sale deed and had also got his name mutated in respect of the land before the last date of filing the application. However, on an enquiry made by the departmental authorities, it was found that the petitioner had produced some documents in relation to some non-existent land and, therefore, it was held that the petitioner did not fulfil one of the essential criterion and he was not found eligible for appointment. 6. Before the tribunal, the Petitioner did not produce the sale deed in support of his claim purchasing the land. He only produced a mutation order and the income certificate granted by the revenue authority. 7. 6. Before the tribunal, the Petitioner did not produce the sale deed in support of his claim purchasing the land. He only produced a mutation order and the income certificate granted by the revenue authority. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the evidences produced before it, the Tribunal came to the finding that the materials produced by the petitioner were not sufficient to rebut the positive finding in the departmental enquiry that the papers submitted by the petitioner were in respect of some non-existent land. 8. On going through the order coming under challenge and on a consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has not committed any error. This controversy stands concluded by a finding of fact which does not warrant any interference by this court. The petitioner can, therefore, be granted no relief. 9. The petition is, thus, dismissed.