JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Asheesh Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 and Mr. Abdul Moin, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. Draped in brevity, the facts of the case are that the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Faizabad Division, Faizabad (opposite party No. 3) vide notification dated 22.6.2000 invited applications for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) at Maharajganj (Surapur), district Ambedkar Nagar. Twenty Three persons, including the petitioner and private respondent, had applied for the aforesaid post. According to the petitioner, the opposite party No. 4 stood at the top of the list, whereas the petitioner stood at Sl. No. 2 on the basis of percentage of high school examination. However, the opposite party No. 4 was not having the requisite conditions/requirements and as such the authorities after considering the candidature of all the candidates, recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment. Later on, after due procedure and selection process, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 10.12.2000. As the private respondent-opposite party No. 4 was not given appointment, he filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that he secured higher marks in the High School in comparison to petitioner. However, the opposite party No. 4 had not challenged the requirement of notification; rather, accepted the same. 3. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the Original Application of the private respondent and quashed the appointment order of the petitioner. Further, the Tribunal directed the official respondents to issue offer of appointment to the person who stands first in the order of merit and in case, such a person provides suitable accommodation to serve as the agency premises for postal operations, the appointment letter would be issued in favour of such persons. In case, however, the person who stands first in the order of merit fails to offer space within the prescribed time, the person who stands second in the order of merit would be sent a similar offer of appointment. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. In case, however, the person who stands first in the order of merit fails to offer space within the prescribed time, the person who stands second in the order of merit would be sent a similar offer of appointment. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court, vide order dated 3.9.2011, directed that status quo as it existed on the date of order, with regard to the post in question, shall be maintained by the parties, but in the event, the petitioner was not working as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM), the order would not be applicable to him. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was fully qualified for the post in question, as not only he has secured 64% in the High School, but has got joint landed property in the name of his members of family on which his share comes to 0.195 hectare. Further, he has got own landed property measuring 0.126 hectare. Out of the aforesaid land, the petitioner's annual income was Rs. 4,200/-. Thus the petitioner was fulfilling the other mandatory conditions for appointment on the aforesaid post. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal fell into serious error in not considering this vital fact and the fact that though the opposite party No. 4 had obtained 67% marks in the High School, but was not fulfilling the other mandatory conditions regarding adequate means of livelihood and landed property. Before the Tribunal also, the authorities have clearly stated that the petitioner was second in the merit list amongst the candidates applied for the said post and he fulfilled all the conditions of sufficient income, landed property and sufficient accommodation for operation of Post Office and therefore only he was selected and appointed on the said post. 6. Elaborating his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and are not based on correct appreciation of material on record. The Tribunal has also erred in not considering the notification dated 7.1.1994 issued by the Assistant Director General (Training), Department of Posts, New Delhi which is in respect of income and property qualification prescribed for appointment to various departments of Extra Departmental Agents. 7. The Tribunal has also erred in not considering the notification dated 7.1.1994 issued by the Assistant Director General (Training), Department of Posts, New Delhi which is in respect of income and property qualification prescribed for appointment to various departments of Extra Departmental Agents. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 submits that he fulfilled all the stipulations mentioned in the notification dated 22.6.2000, insofar as he was having landed property as well as independent source of income and was also a High School pass candidate having highest marks in the High School, which is pre-condition for appointment. Further, he submits that the petitioner has got less marks in the High School Examination in comparison to the opposite party No. 4. Moreover, the Service Rules for Postal E.D. Staff categorically provided that the appointment of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) should be based on the marks secured in the Matriculation or equivalent examination. The other conditions regarding Income, Ownership of property, etc. is to be fulfilled at the time when the person takes over the agency meaning thereby that the initial selection of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) would be based on the marks secured in the Matriculation Examination, i.e. most meritorious candidate amongst all would be given an offer of appointment and he would only be appointed when he fulfils all the conditions prescribed under the Rules. Further, he contends that the opposite party No. 4 was having a kuchha house would not render him ineligible for the appointment keeping in view Rule 3, which provides that the person selected for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) must be able to offer space to serve as the agency premises for postal operations, meaning, thereby that the selected candidate's house is not to be seen, but what is essential is that selected person should be able to offer suitable premises for the purpose of running the Post Office. This condition has to be fulfilled when the person who stands first in order of merit is given an offer of appointment as per Rules, as has been submitted by him. 8. Lastly, he submits that in a similar matter, in the case of Arvind Kumar Shukla v. Union of India, this Court vide order dated 1.5.2002 held that the offer of appointment cannot be equated or termed as appointment. 8. Lastly, he submits that in a similar matter, in the case of Arvind Kumar Shukla v. Union of India, this Court vide order dated 1.5.2002 held that the offer of appointment cannot be equated or termed as appointment. It is for the department to give an offer of appointment to the meritorious candidate selected and he is required to fulfill other conditions as are prescribed within the time specified, i.e. before he is actually appointed. The appointment of such candidate would not be made and no appointment letter would be issued in case such a selected candidate fails in having the condition of residence and providing adequate space for postal operations but then the candidate next in order of merit would be offered appointment. The aforesaid decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal No. 11891/2002. Therefore, the judgment of this Court attained finality. 9. On behalf of official respondents, it has been submitted that the opposite party No. 4 possessed highest marks in High School Examination, amongst all candidates, but he did not fulfil other mandatory conditions necessary to hold the post and hold the Branch Post Office. The opposite party No. 4 did not have any pucca accommodation in his name to set up the Branch Post Office. Likewise, he did not have sufficient income from his independent source, for his livelihood. Even on verification/enquiry, the opposite party No. 4 was found to have not fulfilling the mandatory condition of income and accommodation. Consequently, in overall assessment, the opposite party No. 4 was found unsuitable and was not selected. 10. Considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. 11. According to the notification, the required minimum educational qualification is High School or equivalent and age limit is 18 to 65 years. In the column of income, the application of those applicants be considered whose livelihood is earned by landed property or immovable property, but landed property must be on its own name. The applicant must have a residence and must have a building for post office, whose map attested by the Village Pradhan is required to be annexed. The notification dated 7.1.1994 is on the subject of income and property qualifications prescribed for appointment to various categories of Extra Departmental Agents. The applicant must have a residence and must have a building for post office, whose map attested by the Village Pradhan is required to be annexed. The notification dated 7.1.1994 is on the subject of income and property qualifications prescribed for appointment to various categories of Extra Departmental Agents. Condition No. 4 clearly stipulates that the candidates concern should have adequate means of independent livelihood and the income or property in the name of their guardian will not make them eligible for consideration for appointment as ED Agent in the Department. 12. It is pertinent to mention that in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has mentioned that the opposite party No. 4 has got 2 Biswa land which is in the joint name of Abdul Hamid Abdul Majid, Md. Sharif, Gulam Mohammad and opposite party No. 4. This fact has not been denied by the private respondent in his counter-affidavit and an evasive reply has been tendered. 13. Counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Arvind Kumar Shukla v. Union of India, decided on 1.5.2002. The law has developed a lot as would be evident from the latest decision rendered in Kiran Singh (Smt.) v. Union of India and others, 2007(2) ESC 358 (SC). 14. The facts of the case of Kiran Singh (supra) are that the appellant secured 65.80 percent marks in High Schools Examination as against respondent No. 5, who secured 66.30 percent marks in the said examination. The essential educational qualification for the post of ED Sub-Post Masters and ED Branch Post Masters as per the Rules is Matriculation. The Assistant Director General (Training) vide copy of communication No. 17-104/93 Ed. And Trg. Department of Post, New Delhi, emphasized that in case of appointment to ED Post-Masters/ED Branch Post Masters, preference may be given to those candidates whose "adequate means of livelihood is derived from landed property or immovable assets" if they are otherwise eligible for appointment and the income of property in the name of the guardians of the candidates will not make them eligible for consideration for appointment as ED agents in the Department. On perusal of the letter dated 18.4.1996 submitted by the respondent No. 4 to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, regarding verification of income and sources of income of respondent No. 5, who is married to Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, resident of Jaigaon Post Office and Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur, the Tehsildar Shahganj in his Report dated 22.4.1996 submitted that Smt. Neelam Pandey has fifteen decimal of land in her name, which is unarable and the land is full of rubbles (kankar). 15. However, the CAT allowed the application of respondent No. 5 merely on the sole ground that as respondent No. 5 has secured more marks in the High School Examination as against the appellant but it has lost sight of the other eligibility conditions contained in the Service Rules and the Circular governing the selection of the candidate to the post in question. The High Court in its impugned orders has not recorded independent reasons except to agree with the order of the CAT. 16. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid two judgments, Kiran Singh approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court while reversing the judgments of the High Court as well as of the Tribunal, held as under : "13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the order of the CAT which has been affirmed by the High Court is manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained. The appellant and respondent No. 5 both have qualified the High School Examination by securing first division. The eligibility and criterion for the selection of the candidate to the post of EDBPM as per the Service Rules was not only the merit between the two candidates in High School Examination but the additional criterion was that the candidate must be one who has adequate means of livelihood derived from landed property or immovable assets if the candidate is otherwise eligible for appointment. The instructions governing the eligibility of the candidates also provide that no weightage will be given for any higher qualification. The appellant has further fulfilled the essential qualification and required eligibility criterion and as such her selection to hold the post in question was valid whereas respondent No. 5 was not eligible to be appointed on the post for lack of income criterion in terms of the Circular." 17. The appellant has further fulfilled the essential qualification and required eligibility criterion and as such her selection to hold the post in question was valid whereas respondent No. 5 was not eligible to be appointed on the post for lack of income criterion in terms of the Circular." 17. The case law of Kiran Singh (Smt.) is squarely covered to the instant case, as the Tribunal allowed the Original Application of the respondent No. 4 solely on the ground of securing highest marks in the High School Examination and overlooked the other mandatory conditions. Therefore, the coordinate Bench's judgment of this Court, referred to above, as relied upon by the respondent No. 4's counsel would be of no avail to him and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 18. Even otherwise, equity is in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner was offered appointment wayback on 10.12.2000. Even after quashing of his appointment by the Tribunal, this Court granted an ad interim order in favour of the petitioner, as a consequence whereof, the petitioner is continuing in service. 19. Every human law contains an aspiration towards ideal justice or an approximation to ideal justice. Principle of equity represents the conscience of law, and a moral correction of law in order to accord more with justice. Equity means that no wrong should go un-redressed if it is capable of being remedied by Courts. Justice oriented approach as is the present trend in Indian jurisprudence shall have to be read as an inbuilt requirement of the basic concept of justice, to wit, the doctrine of natural justice, fairness, equality and rule of law. 20. Therefore, even assuming, as suggested by the Counsel for the private respondent that the judgment of the Tribunal is perfectly justified, the petitioner's writ petition cannot be thrown away, as the petitioner by the efflux of time (more than a decade) has altered his position. At this juncture, we would like to refer the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. v. Rafique Uddin, SCC 1987 (supp) 400. In this case, the Supreme Court found the appointment of several candidates of 1970 examinations (Munsif examinations) illegal being contrary to the rules. However, considering the facts that the candidates have continued in service around twelve years and some of them even had been promoted on higher posts, the Apex Court refrained from striking their appointments. In this case, the Supreme Court found the appointment of several candidates of 1970 examinations (Munsif examinations) illegal being contrary to the rules. However, considering the facts that the candidates have continued in service around twelve years and some of them even had been promoted on higher posts, the Apex Court refrained from striking their appointments. 21. In the case before us, as averred above, the interim order was passed on 3.9.2001, it seems that after passing of the aforesaid status quo order by this Court, the respondent No. 4 did not make any efforts for getting the matter expedited and loss hope of success, as a consequence whereof, the petitioner continued in service. 22. Taking the holistic view of the matter and the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, which is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 1.8.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby quashed. Costs easy. ——————