JUDGMENT :- R. Banumathi, J. 1. Challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.779 of 2002 (dated 29.6.2004) in and by which the Tribunal set aside the selection of the petitioner, the writ petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 2. Brief facts are that the 2nd respondent issued a notification on 22.2.2002 calling for applications from the candidates belonging to OBC community for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, Tellur. The petitioner submitted application along with the required particulars, Income Certificate and the Property Certificate. Candidates were called for verification of original documents on 18.7.2002. 13 candidates attended the verification of documents. The petitioner was selected for the post of GDS Branch Postmaster. The 3rd respondent, who also submitted his application and participated in the documents verification, was not successful, as he has not submitted the source of income to be certified by the Officer. Being not selected and aggrieved over the process of selection, the 3rd respondent challenged the selection of the petitioner in O.A.No.779 of 2002 contending that the Income Certificate is not mandatory and that as per the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court that requirement regarding possession of property and adequate means of livelihood are not required qualification. In the application before the Tribunal, the petitioner entered appearance and contested the matter. By the Order dated 22.1.2003 in O.A.No.779 of 2002, the Tribunal held that the respondents are not justified in adopting the economic criteria of production of Income/property certificate for selection to a civil post and that merit alone should be the criteria for selection to any civil post. On those findings, Tribunal quashed the order of selection of the petitioner dated 18.7.2002 and directed the Official respondents to consider the case of 3rd respondent for the post of GDS Branch Postmaster, Telllur. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dated 22.1.2002, both Union of India as well as the petitioner filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6027 and 18704 of 2003. After referring the decision of Supreme Court in Indira Sahney vs. Union of India, (1992 (Suppl. (3) SCC 213), by the Order dated 24.11.2003, Division Bench allowed the Writ Petitions setting aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. 4. After referring the decision of Supreme Court in Indira Sahney vs. Union of India, (1992 (Suppl. (3) SCC 213), by the Order dated 24.11.2003, Division Bench allowed the Writ Petitions setting aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. 4. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the matter afresh and again by order dated 29.6.2004 allowed the Original Application – O.A.No.779 of 2002. The Tribunal held that the official respondents' action in taking into consideration the properties/Income is bad in law and that possession of property/adequate means of livelihood should not be a pre-condition for selection and that Tribunal's order cannot be sustained and again quashed the impugned order of selection of the petitioner dated 18.7.2002 and directed the official respondents to consider the case of 3rd respondent afresh for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 5. We have heard Mr.M.Gnanasekar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, we have heard Ms.R.Maheswari, Central Government Standing Counsel. Inspite of service of notice, the 3rd respondent has not entered appearance. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner Mr.M.Gnanasekar has drawn our attention to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13831 of 2001 and contended that as per the Rules, the production of Income Certificate and Property Certificate is mandatory and the petitioner satisfied the mandatory requirements and therefore the selection of the petitioner for the post of GDS BPM is in accordance with the rules. 7. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel Ms.R.Maheswari appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that only petitioner has satisfied mandatory requirement and therefore the selection of the petitioner is in accordance with the rules and while so the Tribunal erred in setting aside the selection of the petitioner, which has been done as per rules. 8. As per Rule 3(3) of the Method of Recruitment prescribed for ED BPM required that the candidate must satisfy both educational qualification and should fulfil the compulsory condition of alternate independent source of income preferably derived from landed property of immovable assets as pre-condition for employment. Rule 3(3) reads as under: ".... the nominated candidates are required to be addressed through registered post calling for application within the date to be stipulated by the recruitment authorities. Rule 3(3) reads as under: ".... the nominated candidates are required to be addressed through registered post calling for application within the date to be stipulated by the recruitment authorities. In the rarest cases, if a candidate at the time of making an application does not satisfy the income/property condition but acquires this qualification subsequent to the submission of the application and sends a written request enclosing documentary evidence in continuation of his application and the same is received within the stipulated date, the recruiting authorities should entertain the same. However, if such an intimation is received after the last date prescribed for the development regarding acquisition of this qualification itself take place after the last date prescribed is over, the same should not be entertained. Similar procedure may also be followed in case it becomes necessary to fill in the post of ED BPM/CD BPM through open advertisement. In other words, in this case also, if an intimation accompanied by documentary proof is received subsequent to the submission of the application within the stipulated date, the same should also be entertained and acted upon." 9. The Department is entitled to prescribe rules and the eligibility criteria before the selection was made. Rule indicates that the production of Income and property certificates, ownership qualification are mandatory. Under Rule 3 Note II (iii) of GDS (C&E) Rules, 2001, a Sevak shall fulfil the compulsory condition of alternate independent source of income preferably derived from the landed property or immovable assets as pre-condition for employment and shall maintain the same after his employment as Sevak. The condition regarding property was insisted upon in the case of ED BPM. The BPM is in-charge of Savings Bank Accounts, Recurring Deposits deposited in the Branch Post Offices. The purpose behind prescribing the requirements regarding property was that appointment to the post of ED BPM is not the full time appointment and the person selected should not depend upon this job alone for his livelihood and to impute responsibilities. Referring to Rule 3(3) and that the production of those certificates are with the object of satisfying that the person has got adequate means of livelihood and ownership of the property besides being able to offer space for running the Branch Post Office and he has also adequate means of livelihood and income from the post of ED BPM. Referring to Rule 3(3) and that the production of those certificates are with the object of satisfying that the person has got adequate means of livelihood and ownership of the property besides being able to offer space for running the Branch Post Office and he has also adequate means of livelihood and income from the post of ED BPM. Referring to Rule 3(3) and the object of insisting for production of Income and property certificates, in an unreported decision – W.P.No.13831 of 2001 (dated 24.2.2004), the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: "7. It is not in dispute that the Department is entitled to prescribe the rules and regulations for the eligibility criteria before selection was made. The Rule would indicate that fulfilment of income and property ownership qualification were rooted to the desired object of the person being in a possession of, to offer the space for running the branch post office and also have an adequate means of livelihood that would not make him wholly dependant on the income from the post of ED BPM. 8. Further, the comprehensive affidavit filed before this Court by the Deputy Director General (Establishment), Department of Posts, India (Ministry of Communications), Daak Bhavan, New Delhi, also would clearly show that the said requirement regarding the possession of ownership of the property has been in force for over a century and that the said condition has proved to be a very useful anchor to ensure that persons appointed will be in a position to render the service which he is required to do in the locality and that the funds of the Post Offices as also the funds of the public who use the Post Offices through which the funds pass through his hands, will be safe. .... 9. As pointed out by the Apex Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. V.Sadanandam and others ( AIR 1989 SC 2060 ), the mode of recruitment and the category for which the recruitment to a service should to ... matters which are exclusively within the domain of the executive. It is not for us .... to sit in judgment over the wisdom of ... recruitment or the categories from which the recruitment should be made as they are matters of policy decision falling exclusively within the purview of the executive." 10. matters which are exclusively within the domain of the executive. It is not for us .... to sit in judgment over the wisdom of ... recruitment or the categories from which the recruitment should be made as they are matters of policy decision falling exclusively within the purview of the executive." 10. The Department is entitled to prescribe the rules and regulations for selection. Since the selection of the petitioner has been made in accordance with rules, following the ratio of the above decision, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.