ORDER 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India against the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranch! in O.A. No. 262 of 2002. By the aforesaid judgment and order, while it has been held that the applicant-respondent is more meritorious, directed the petitioner to consider his case for some alternative appointment to the similar post or equivalent post in the nearby place within a stipulated period. 2. It appears that a post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (hereinafter to be referred as EDBPM) fell vacant at Bara Banjhi in Santhal Parganas Postal Division (Jharkhand). The names of probable candidates were called for from the Employment Exchange. After scrutiny and recommendation of a Selection Committee, one person was appointed on 30th October, 1998, It was challenged by the respondent-applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 869 of 1998, which was disposed of on 12th September, 2002. The letter of appointment was set aside and the case was remitted to the petitioner, herein, with direction to scrutinize and reconsider the matter. 3. Subsequently, by order dated 5th November, 2002, said person was given fresh appointment. It was again challenged by the respondent-applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 262 of 2002. 4. Learned Tribunal while did not interfere with the order of appointment of the concerned respondent to the said case, made following observations and directions :- 10. So far as second criteria of having landed property is concerned, the plea of the respondents with regard to the disputed names of the applicants father does not appear to be very convincing as submitted by the applicant in the memo of parties also while showing his fathers name as son of Bhola Prasad Sah alias Bhola Sah. Moreover, as per direction passed by this Court in the earlier O.A. tay observing that the official respondents would not have issued appointment letter to respondent No. 3 as the whole matter has not been examined thoroughly, the case was remitted back to the authorities concerned while setting aside the order of appointment of respondent No. 3 keeping in view that the applicants position was found to be at SI. No. 5 and respondent No. 3 was found to be at SI No. 6 as per written statement filed by the respondents in the said O.A. copy thereof has also been placed by the applicant in the present O.A. as Annexure A/3. 11. Therefore, taking into consideration the overall discussion of the matter as above, though we are of the view that there was hairline difference in the merit of both these candidates and also taking into consideration that the respondent No. 3 has been working on the said post for the last six years uninterruptedly to the entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned, we do not find it appropriate to quash his appointment at this stage. However, in view of our observation that the applicant was more meritorious than the respondent No. 3 was hereby give directions to the respondents concerned to consider his case for some alternative appointment to the said post or equivalent in the nearby place positively within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. It is a settled law that no Court has any jurisdiction to determines as to which of the candidate is more meritorious. In the matter of selection and appointment, if any illegality is committed or any order is passed without jurisdiction or perverse and/or passed in violation of any rules/guidelines, it is open for a Court to interfere with the same. 6. So far as merit is concerned, the Court cannot adjudge to find out as to who amongst the two is more meritorious; It can be done only by the competent authority or an Expert Body, such as Selection Committee. 7. In the facts and circumstances we hold that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi had no jurisdiction to declare the respondent-applicant more meritorious than the other candidate. 8. There is another infirmity in the impugned judgment, Admittedly, the order of appointment of the other person has not been set aside on the ground that he is in service for more than six years. In such a situation, there was no occasion to remit the case of respondent-applicant for consideration of his case for appointment against some other post, which has not been advertised. In such a situation, there was no occasion to remit the case of respondent-applicant for consideration of his case for appointment against some other post, which has not been advertised. The case of the respondent-applicant could not have been considered against some other post, which has not been advertised, and without following the procedure and giving opportunity to other similarly situated persons and thus, the direction to that effect is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the circumstances, we have no other option but to set aside the part of the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranch! in O.A. No. 262 of 2002 so far it relates to respondent- applicant. 10. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations. 11. However, this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondent- applicant to apply for appointment if any post is advertised in future.