Judgment CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD and RAVI RANJAN JJ. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14th of December, 1999 passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 580 of 1993. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that petitioner as also respondent no. 5 herein were candidates for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master of Kusamaha Extra Departmental Branch Post Office. Petitioner had secured 506 marks in the matriculation examination, whereas respondent no. 5 520 marks. However, respondent no. 5 was denied appointment. He challenged the appointment of the petitioner by filing application before the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, contending that he having secured higher marks, he ought to have been preferred for appointment. Official respondents justified the appointment of petitioner on the ground that respondent no. 5 herein had ill-health as also his financial condition is poor. According to the official respondents, the local Mukhiya lodged a complaint to the Communication Minister on the aforesaid grounds. 3. The Tribunal on appraisal of the materials came to the conclusion that Mukhiya has no role in appointment of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master and further without verifying the contents of allegation respondent no. 5 was denied appointment. Accordingly, it set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner and directed the official respondents to consider the case of respondent no. 5 in accordance with law, subject to the medical fitness. 4. Dr. Jha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that financial condition of a candidate and health of the incumbent are relevant consideration and, as such, appointment of petitioner cannot be held to be bad only on the ground that he has secured less marks. 5. We do not find any substance in the submission of Dr. Jha. Respondent No. 5 was denied appointment only on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Mukhiya alleging ill-health and poor financial condition of respondent no. 5. Official respondents have not verified the same. Mukhiya has no role in the process of appointment of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. 6. Thus, in our opinion, the Tribunal rightly held that respondent no. 5 was denied appointment on illegal ground and accordingly directed for consideration of his case in accordance with law. 7. 5. Official respondents have not verified the same. Mukhiya has no role in the process of appointment of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. 6. Thus, in our opinion, the Tribunal rightly held that respondent no. 5 was denied appointment on illegal ground and accordingly directed for consideration of his case in accordance with law. 7. We do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly, but without any order as to costs.