JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — Heard Mr. P. K. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Patnaik, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties 2 to 4 and Mr. D. N. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 5. 2. Since the Central Administrative Tribunal (O.P.No. 1) is not a necessary party, it is deleted from the array of the parties. 3. This writ application has been filed against the im¬pugned judgment and order dated 7.10.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No. 523 of 1992. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 with other candidates applied for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM), Mahagaba Branch Post Office under Balasore Division. The eligibil¬ity criteria for selection of the candidates for consideration in respect of the said post was as under : The candidate must (i) have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination; (ii) be within the age group of 18-63 years on the date of appli¬cation; (iii) be prepared to provide a rent-free accommodation for the post office in the post village; (iv) have adequate landed properties owned by him; (v) be a permanent resident of post village and should be pre¬pared to stay in the post village. 5. The opposite party No. 5 not having landed property in his own name as per the eligibility criteria No. 4 mentioned above, was not found eligible. Consequently, the next person, i.e. the petitioner working as substitute EDBPM from time to time having highest marks among the candidates, was selected on 5.10.1992 and was given appointment on 30.11.1992. 6. Being aggrieved, opposite party No. 5 had filed the above mentioned O.A.before the Tribunal. He submitted income certificate showing his income as Rs. 12,200/- per annum. The petitioner also submitted income certificate his showing income as Rs. 18,800/- per annum. However, he was having landed property in his own name. On verification it was found that the opposite party No. 5 had no landed property in his own name. Rather he claimed ancestral property in his share. But since the requirement as quoted above was that the candidate should have landed property in his own name, his candidature was rejected. 7. The basis of selection is the percentage of marks obtained in the Matriculation examination. 8. Rather he claimed ancestral property in his share. But since the requirement as quoted above was that the candidate should have landed property in his own name, his candidature was rejected. 7. The basis of selection is the percentage of marks obtained in the Matriculation examination. 8. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A.holding that the opposite party No. 5 was wrongly recommended by the departmental authorities. Therefore, it was directed by it that the departmen¬tal authorities would consider the candidature of the persons who were considered at the time when the petitioner was selected, once again strictly in pursuance of the instructions of the D.G., Posts and make selection. Being aggrieved, the instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner who was already selected and appointed as already mentioned above. 9. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal for the purpose of this case. The relevant por¬tion thereof, is quoted as under : “The departmental authorities have enclosed a copy of the check list from which it appears that the candidature of the applicant No. 1 is rejected only on the ground that he was not having any landed property in his own name. The departmental authorities in the counter filed by them have taken the plea that the income certificate is not reliable. It is possible for the applicant to have income otherwise than from the land and his income certificate should not have been disbelieved because of his having no land in his own name.” 10. In the eligibility criteria, the question of income certificate was not under consideration. The only requirement was that the candidate must have adequate landed properties owned by him. The meaning of “landed properties owned by him” would be that the property should be exclusively in his own name and he should not be a joint holder of the property. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve that the opposite party No. 5 had no landed property exclusively in his own name. It is well settled law that it is not open for the Tribunal or the Court to substi¬tute its own condition in place of the condition laid down under a statute even by way of subordinate legislation and the same has to be accepted unilaterally and indiscriminately. 11. It is well settled law that it is not open for the Tribunal or the Court to substi¬tute its own condition in place of the condition laid down under a statute even by way of subordinate legislation and the same has to be accepted unilaterally and indiscriminately. 11. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned order on the basis of the income certificate by opposite party No. 5 which was not relevant for the eligibility criteria. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not sustaina¬ble in the eye of law. Therefore, the writ application is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is quashed. No order as to costs. N. PRUSTY, J. I agree. Application allowed.