JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Applicant in O.A. No. 287 of 2009 is aggrieved by order dated 8th August, 2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Court at Ranchi), whereunder the learned tribunal dismissed the Original Application, finding no merit in it. Applicant had challenged a communication dated 15.04.2009 (Annexure-8) issued by the Respondent No. 2 and also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to comply the order dated 16.07.2004 passed in O.A. No. 663 of 2000 and 30 of 2000 in its true spirit by constituting a Medical Board to fill up the vacant post of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (EDMC) at Baghbera by taking the cycling test as essential qualification for handicapped person. 3. Earlier against a single vacancy for physically handicapped persons to the post of EDMC at Baghbera Branch Post Office, advertised in October, 1998, applicant was selected amongst 38 candidates whose names were requisitioned from the employment exchange and were called for interview. He worked for some time but on dispute being raised by another candidate, private respondent herein about his selection, the Post Master General directed the termination of the appointment of the applicant on 06.09.2000. Private respondent had also filed an application bearing O.A. No. 390 of 2000 raising the aforesaid grievances. Since the issue was under examination by the respondent authorities of the Postal Department, the said Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 01.06.2000 directing the respondent Post Master General, Ranchi to take a decision in accordance with law within six weeks. The applicant challenged his order of termination in O.A. No. 30 of 2000 while the private respondent had also preferred and Original Application bearing No. 663 of 2000 seeking quashing of the order dated 18.08.2000 of the PMG, whereby fresh recruitment had been ordered. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of EDDA/EDMC of the said post office contending that he had obtained more marks in SCC and was more meritorious than the present applicant. He also possessed the other requirements of the post and deserved to be selected. The learned Tribunal heard both the Original Applications together and found that the post of EDMC at Baghbera Branch was reserved for physically handicapped person and applications were invited only from the physically handicapped persons for appointment. He also possessed the other requirements of the post and deserved to be selected. The learned Tribunal heard both the Original Applications together and found that the post of EDMC at Baghbera Branch was reserved for physically handicapped person and applications were invited only from the physically handicapped persons for appointment. It found that irregularities were perpetuated right form assessing the eligibility and merit of the each candidate. It came to the opinion that a fresh recruitment in calling for fresh application for the said post was not proper and as such would prejudice the case of the candidate who had applied to the post in the year 1998, as it would amount to widening the zone of consideration to the disadvantage of the existing candidates. Accordingly, a direction was issued to redo the selection for the said post from the same candidates whose names were forwarded by the employment exchange after ascertaining their eligibility by obtaining assessment of disabilities through Medical examination from the Medical Board or Civil Surgeon concerned and adopting the selection procedure as per rules. The learned tribunal also had taken note of the fact that one of the requirements of the post was the knowledge of cycling. It had also made reference to the office memorandum of the department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms whereunder percentage of the reservation was distributed amongst the three categories of physically handicapped persons:- (i). Blindness or low vision; (ii). Hearing Impairment; and (iii). Locomotor disability or Cerebral Palsy, 1% each. 4. The applicant herein unsuccessfully assailed the order of learned tribunal in W.P.(S) No. 5548 of 2004 which was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2006 by the learned Division Bench of this Court, Civil Review No. 41 of 2006 preferred thereafter by him also stood dismissed by order dated 10.01.2007 (Annexure- 3 series). The Civil Surgeon, Jamshedpur on the request of the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices vide letter dated 12.09.2007 (Annexure-4) assessed the physical disability of the candidates who appeared before him including the applicant and the private respondent. Applicant was found to be suffering from 40% physical disability while private respondent was found to be suffering from 100% physical disability. In terms of the requirement of the post, knowledge of cycling efficiency was also essential qualification as per the same letter dated 12.09.2007. Applicant was found to be suffering from 40% physical disability while private respondent was found to be suffering from 100% physical disability. In terms of the requirement of the post, knowledge of cycling efficiency was also essential qualification as per the same letter dated 12.09.2007. Private respondent passed the test and was found to have secured higher marks in matric amongst all the applied candidates. Accordingly, he was selected for the post of GDSMC, Baghbera. This fact was communicated under Right to Information Act to the applicant through letter dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure-7). Official respondent also informed the applicant on his representation vide letter dated 15.4.2009 (Annexure-9) that the private respondent had passed the cycling test conducted by ASPO(W) and his competency of cycling was also certified by one member of the Panchayat Samity. This communication was also challenged in the instant Original Application by the applicant. 5. Official respondent through their statements made at paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit have stated that the Civil Surgeon vide letter no. 29 dated 07.01.2008 had opined that there was no book available under which it is mentioned about up to how much percentage of disability can do cycling. It is up to the individual capacity/will power. The private respondent was managing the work well. There was no complaint about non delivery of letters from any corner. Further averments have been made that the fresh recruitment was conducted observing all rules and regulations amongst the applications received for the post. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has questioned the finding of the learned tribunal. He submits that the learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate that a person suffering from 100% physical disability could not have passed the cycling test which was an essential requirement. Applicant suffering from 40% disability was therefore, better qualified for appointment. Learned counsel for the applicant on being specifically asked has not been able to show as to which nature of physical disability was the private respondent suffering. Applicant has annexed certificate of own physical disability which is locomotor in nature (Annexure-1) issued by the Civil Surgeon- Chief Medical Officer, Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. The relevant seal and dates are, however, illegible. The applicant has also not categorically said any where in the writ petition as to whether he has passed the cycling test. Applicant has annexed certificate of own physical disability which is locomotor in nature (Annexure-1) issued by the Civil Surgeon- Chief Medical Officer, Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. The relevant seal and dates are, however, illegible. The applicant has also not categorically said any where in the writ petition as to whether he has passed the cycling test. On the contrary, the private respondent was found to be more meritorious as he had more marks in matriculation than all other applied candidates, as noted above. His physical disability was also more than the applicant. The official respondents through letter dated 15.04.2009 had categorically stated that cycling test of the private respondent was done by ASPO(W) and his competency of cycling was also certified by Vijay Ram (Member, Panchyat Samiti). Through the statements made at para 11 of the counter affidavit, the official respondents also stated that private respondent has been managing his job well and there are no complaints about non delivery of letters from any corner. The learned Tribunal has taken into account the fact that the private respondent was more meritorious; the physical disability was certified by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, competent to do so and that the official respondents had also shown that the private respondents had qualified the cycling test. As such, it did not find any illegality in the communication contained in letter dated 15.04.2009(Annexure-9 herein) under challenge. Accordingly the Original Application was dismissed holding that the respondents had conducted the recruitment exercise in consonance with the order of the tribunal as well as the order of the High Court. 7. The learned ASGI has also supported the impugned finding and submitted that all relevant material aspects germane to the controversy have been duly considered while arriving at an informed opinion. Therefore this Court may not interfere in the same. 8. The learned counsel for the private respondent has also supported the judgment and opposed the prayer of the applicant. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the other relevant material facts, taken note above. On conspectus of the totality of facts and circumstances and the reasons discussed herein above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 10. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the other relevant material facts, taken note above. On conspectus of the totality of facts and circumstances and the reasons discussed herein above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant, at the end, has tried to persuade us to observe that his case may be considered for any vacant post of EDMC available under the Organization. However, in the given context of the challenge, we are not required to make any comments thereupon. If it is permissible for the applicant to do so, it is open for him. 11. Instant writ petition stands dismissed.