JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 25.8.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Circuit Bench at Ranchi, whereby O.A. filed by respondent No. 4 has been allowed. 2. Vide impugned order, appointment of the present petitioner has been quashed and a direction issued to consider the case of respondent No. 4 for appointment in his place. 3. Briefly staled facts are that vide notification, dated 13.3.2000, the names of eligible candidates were invited through the employment exchange for the post of EDBPM. Petitioner herein and respondent No. 4 applied for the post of EDBPM, Bagra EDBO. As many as 11 applications were received. The criteria for selection was marks obtained in Matriculation Examination and possession of landed property. It is admitted case of the parties that respondent No. 4 secured 602 out 900 marks in Matriculation Examination whereas the present petitioner had less marks (3rd Division). On completion of selection, petitioner herein came to be selected. Since respondent No. 4 had better merit and he claims to be possessed of the landed property, challenged the appointment of the petitioner before the C.A.T. Patna Bench at Ranchi by filing O.A. 79/2001 which was disposed of by the C.A.T. Patna Bench at Ranchi on 11.12.2002 directing the Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi to dispose of the representation of respondent No. 4 within a period of three months Representation of respondent No. 4 was rejected by the Director Postal Services, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi vide his order dated 20.7.2004 which reads as under: 4. The records relating to filling up of the post of EDBPM Bagra BO has been examined again in the light of the order dated 11.12.2002 of Honble CAT Patna Bench in OA 79/2001 with the following observation that Shri Abhishek Kumar although possess more marks in matriculation examination than that of Shri Shashi Kumar Singh but he had simply submitted sale deed without mutation slip or rent receipt. He was found not fulfilling the property qualification as on or before 11.04.2000 i.e. the last date of receipt of application, which is mandatory to the post of EDBPM. In view of the facts stated above, the representation of Shri Abhisekh Kumar Singh has been gone through carefully. The claim of Shri Abhisekh Kumar Singh does not find merit and hence rejected. 4. In view of the facts stated above, the representation of Shri Abhisekh Kumar Singh has been gone through carefully. The claim of Shri Abhisekh Kumar Singh does not find merit and hence rejected. 4. Aggrieved of this order, respondent No. 4 filed another OA No. 333 of 2004 which has been decided by the C.A.T. vide impugned judgment. The Tribunal noticed that last date of submission of application was 16.4.2000. Respondent No. 4 acquired agricultural land situated in village -Khaplawani P.O. Kelheiya via Chatra by virtue of sale deed dated 31.3.2000 i.e. prior to the date for making application. However, the mutation was ordered on 5.5.2000 i.e. alter the last date of submission of application. Selection Board rejected his claim for appointment only on the ground that land had not been mutated in favour of respondent No. 4 as on the last date for making application and despite his better merit than the petitioner, he was denied appointment. The Tribunal noticed these facts and held that mutation entry neither creates nor extinguishes title or ownership. Since respondent No. 4 was otherwise owner of the property by virtue of (sic) appointment was wrongly rejected. 5. Mrs. Pal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 failed to produce either mutation slip or the rent receipt and thus he is not entitled to appointment. 6. It is settled law that mutation is only a fiscal entry for purposes of imposing liability for payment of land revenue and docs not by itself confer title over the landed property. This proposition is settled by the Apex Court in the ease of Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Anr. . Respondent No. 4 had title over the property by virtue of registered sale deed and thus mutation hemp, only a consequential entry, his title was in existence as on the last date of making application. 7. In any case, a Full Bench of Tribunal in H. Laxamun and Anr. v. Superintendent of Post Offices had quashed this condition. Therefore, the only criteria for selection remains the merit in Matriculation examination and admittedly respondent No. had better merit than the petitioner. On the basis of merit, the Tribunal allowed O.A. filed by respondent No. 4 and quashed the appointment of the petitioner and issued further directions as referred to above. 8. Therefore, the only criteria for selection remains the merit in Matriculation examination and admittedly respondent No. had better merit than the petitioner. On the basis of merit, the Tribunal allowed O.A. filed by respondent No. 4 and quashed the appointment of the petitioner and issued further directions as referred to above. 8. Mrs Pal learned Counsel for the petitioner, has referred to two judgments of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 2865 of 2004 and in W.P.(S) No. 6439 of 2004. In W.P.(S) No. 2865 of 2004, the Tribunal had set aside the appointment on the basis of higher merit of candidates who were not parties before the Tribunal. The order of Tribunal was challenged before the High Court find n Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of Tribunal on the ground that merit of those persons, who are not before the Court, could not be made a basis for quashing the appointment. This Court further held that writ petitioners had not fulfilled the conditions of advertisement. Facts of that case are distinct than the present case. In W.P.(S) No. 6439 of 2001, this Court held that marks obtained in Matriculation Examination was not the sole criteria for appointment and applicant should have his own immovable property in his name. In the present case respondent No. 4 is possessed of landed properly. Mrs. Pal has further relied upon the judgments in the case of Union of India v. Chandra Shekhar Sah reported in 2002(2) JCR 18 (JHR) and in the case of Ajeet Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2001(4) PLJR 7 . In the case of Union of India (supra) the Tribunal determined the merit and set aside the appointment. In that case, there was a dispute whether other conditions of advertisement were fulfilled or not. However, in the present case, better merit of respondent No. 4 is not disputed by the petitioner and other respondents but appointment refused on other irrelevant grounds. Neither the Tribunal nor we have determined the merit of candidates as merit is admitted by both the parties. In view of the admitted position and merit, the ratio of the other judgment in Ajeet Kumar Singh (supra) has also no application to the fuels of the present case. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.