JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent nos.1 to 4. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.8.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the requisite certificate in regard to residence was not filed by the respondent no.5 and, therefore, his appointment was invalid. 4. It is to be noted that the petitioner has earlier filed an original application challenging the advertisement, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2012, treating the said original application as infructuous on account of the fact that the selection took place in the meantime. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is in respect of declaration/submission of domicile certificate. He has submitted that the appointment letter was issued to respondent no.5 on 05.05.2012, whereas the declaration has been submitted by the respondent no.5 on 07.05.2015. The declaration given by respondent no.5 goes to indicate that he is having his house at Indira Nagar, Lucknow numbering 19/417. The said fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Even if the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on its face value, then also it is evident that the respondent no.5 has submitted the declaration before joining. The condition stipulated in the Circular is, that one is required to submit the declaration/domicile certificate prior to his appointment. The condition is not in respect of prior to issuance of appointment letter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that respondent no.5 was allowed to join prior to the submission of declaration i.e. 07.05.2012 and neither such a ground was taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Apart from it, the petitioner has participated in the selection and thereafter he proceeded to turn a round and challenge the selection. After participation, the selection could not have been challenged by the petitioner, but looking to the anxiety of the petitioner, we have considered his case on merit as well. We do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.