JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This writ application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 212 of 2000 disposed of on 30.8.2001. Opp. party No. 3 before this Court was the applicant before the Tribunal. The present petitioner was respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal. 2. In response to notification dated 22.8.1995 for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM), Bartania Branch Office, the petitioner, opposite party No. 3 and four others submitted their applications. The present petitioner was selected in the selection process and was given appointment. Challenging his selection and appointment to the post of EDBPM* the present opposite party No. 3 filed O.A. before the Tribunal. The ground taken before the Tribunal was that the applicant had secured more marks than the present petitioner in H.S.C. Examination and had fulfilled the rest of the requirement for such appointment and, therefore the petitioner before this Court could not have been selected and appointed against the post. Counter affidavit was filed by the department wherein it was admitted that the applicant before the Tribunal (opposite party No. 3 in this writ application) had secured better percentage of marks than the petitioner but the sale deed submitted by the applicant indicated that it was a joint family property and only two of the share holders had executed the sale deed without consent of others and, therefore, such sale deed did not confer any title on the applicant. He also having mentioned in the application that he had no adequate income from other sources, his candidature was rejected. Rejoinder filed by the applicant before the Tribunal stating therein that 0.54 decimals of land purchased by him is not in dispute and he being a co-sharer, had purchased the same from his brothers and a patta has been granted in his favour. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment found that the applicant before it had secured better percentage of marks than the petitioner and interpreting adequate means of livelihood held that a person to be selected as EDBPM should be in a position to offer space to serve for the agency as well as public call office. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment found that the applicant before it had secured better percentage of marks than the petitioner and interpreting adequate means of livelihood held that a person to be selected as EDBPM should be in a position to offer space to serve for the agency as well as public call office. The case of the department not being that, the applicant was not in a position to offer the same, the case of the applicant was accepted by the Tribunal and appointment of the petitioner was set aside. ' 3. Shri R.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned judgment on the ground that even though the applicant had secured better percentage of marks than the petitioner that is not the sole criteria for selection and appointment as EDBPM. The applicant having not satisfied the other requirements for such appointment he was not rightly selected by the department. Learned counsel for the department also submitted that candidature of the applicant was rejected on the ground that he had admitted in the application that he had no adequate income from other sources. Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 3 (applicant before the Tribunal) submitted that the relevant instructions dealing with the "Method of Recruitment" clearly provide that a person must have adequate means of livelihood and should be in a position to offer space to serve as the agency premises for postal operation. The premises must be such as will serve as a small postal office with provision for installation of even a PCO. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 that the applicant had offered a piece of land for running the branch post office and had also submitted an income certificate issued by the competent authority and, therefore, his candidature could not have been turned down by the department. 4. On examination of the records placed before this Court, we find that opposite party No. 3 had secured 41.41% marks in H.S.C. Examination whereas the present petitioner had secured 41.25%. Therefore, undisputedly opposite party No. 3 -had secured better marks than the petitioner. It is also found that the opposite party No. 3 submitted an income certificate issued by the competent authority. The checksheet discloses that the income of opposite party No. 3 was Rs. 10,000/- per annum from agricultural source. Therefore, undisputedly opposite party No. 3 -had secured better marks than the petitioner. It is also found that the opposite party No. 3 submitted an income certificate issued by the competent authority. The checksheet discloses that the income of opposite party No. 3 was Rs. 10,000/- per annum from agricultural source. This certificate has not been challenged either by the department or even by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Apart from above, documents were filed along with the application that opposite party No. 3 was the owner of some landed properties by virtue of a sale deed executed in his favour. When the specific case of opposite party No. 3 before the department was that he had purchased the land from his brothers, the department could not have ignored the document on the ground that it does not confer any title on opposite party No. 3, the same having been executed by two of the co-sharers and consent having not been taken from other co-sharers. 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment we also find that along with the application the aforesaid sale deed had been produced and Patta has been granted in respect of land covered under the sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 3. Therefore, opposite party No. 3, who was applicant before the Tribunal, had secured more marks than the petitioner in H.S.C. Examination and was in a position to offer space for running a Branch Post Office and had also an annual income of Rs. 10,000/- per annum. 6. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2007) 2 SCC 733. In the said decision, appellant had secured 65.80% and respondent No. 5, 60.30% in the High School Examination but the appellant had more than 32 decimals of land and her monthly income was Rs. 1,000/- whereas respondent No. 5 had 15 decimals unarable land in her name which was full of rubbles and had no income from agriculture. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court held that merely because respondent No. 5 had secured better percentage of marks than the appellant in the High School Examination, he could not have been appointed only on that ground. On facts the reported decision has no application to this case. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court held that merely because respondent No. 5 had secured better percentage of marks than the appellant in the High School Examination, he could not have been appointed only on that ground. On facts the reported decision has no application to this case. The applicant before the Tribunal had income of Rs. 10,000/- per annum from agriculture and had also offered a piece of land for running the Branch Office and, therefore, it can be safely said that he had adequate means of livelihood derived from landed property or immovable assets. In the reported case, respondent No. 5 had no income and 15 decimals of land offered by him was full of rubbles, which could not have been used for the purpose of a Branch Post Office. The other decision cited at the bar in the case Suman Verms v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2005 (1) ATJ has also no application in facts of the case. The facts therein are completely different than the present case. Having found that opposite party No. 3 was more meritorious than the petitioner and had also satisfied the other requirements for appointed as EDBPM, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal impugned before us. 7. The writ application being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. I. Mahanty, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed