JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. Also perused impugned order dated 28.9.2010 whereby O.A. No. 1028 of 2003 preferred by applicant, Ram Udgar Yadav, a respondent herein has been allowed and the order of the postal authorities rejecting claim of the applicant for appointment on the post of EDBPM (now GDSBPM) in Sahsi Branch Office in the postal division of Begusarai, set aside. 3. The petitioner was appointed to the said post in preference to the claim of the applicant which was rejected by the postal authorities on the ground that he had failed to show that he had separate land of his own or separate means of livelihood. It is not in dispute that the applicant had better marks in matriculation examination and a superior claim to the post and that it was rejected on the ground that according to the authorities the mutation of the properties in question was in joint name of the applicant and his brother. 4. The learned Tribunal has considered the provisions of the relevant departmental letter dated 6.12.1993 in paragraph- 10 of the impugned order. The said letter which was by way of clarification does not require that the candidate should have landed property or immovable assets only in his exclusive name in order to prove that he has adequate means of livelihood. Paragraph-4 of that letter upon which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the candidates concerned should have adequate means of independent livelihood and the income or property in the name of their guardians will not make them eligible for consideration. 5. It is nobodys case that the applicant had placed reliance upon income or property of any person alleged to be his guardian. As per settled position of law, the applicant had a definite claim in the property standing in his name and in the name of his brother. Hence the authorities had clearly erred in disregarding the letter of clarification dated 6.12.1993 while rejecting the claim of the applicant. As per settled position of law, the applicant had a definite claim in the property standing in his name and in the name of his brother. Hence the authorities had clearly erred in disregarding the letter of clarification dated 6.12.1993 while rejecting the claim of the applicant. It is further relevant to notice that in paragraphs-13 to 15 of the impugned order the Tribunal has considered the mutation order and the report of Anchal Adhikari and other relevant materials relating to the landed property of the applicant and on that basis it has been concluded that the documents clearly suggest that though the mutation order is in joint name, the mutation order itself reveals that there was private partition of lands between the applicant and his brother and half of the entire area was allotted to the applicant whereby in every plot he had 50-50 share for which he was required to pay rent separately. 6. In our view, the Tribunal on the basis of such materials rightly concluded that the applicant had adequate means of independent livelihood. 7. We find no error of law or facts in the order of the learned Tribunal. This writ petition is, therefore, found to be without merits. It is dismissed accordingly. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Before parting with the order, we must record a submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this lady was not at fault and she continued to hold the post in question for nearly 15 years and at this juncture she will face acute difficulty and distress in finding another job of the same nature, moreso, when she has crossed the age of eligibility. 10. While sympathizing with the petitioner on the aforesaid count, this Court has very limited options. After hearing learned counsel for the Union of India on this issue, it is directed in the interest of justice that if in future the petitioner applies for appointment against such or similar post in this department or any other department of Union of India, she shall be granted age relaxation for the purpose of recruitment at least for 14 years which she has definitely spent in service on account of wrong rejection of claim of the applicant. 11. 11. This order will not stand in the way of Union of India and its Officials if they want to adjust the petitioner against any other post in order to mitigate her difficulties in such an extraordinary situation.