IMPORTANT POINT
Where any rule or guideline provide preference in respect of some higher qualification, it only means that all other requirements being equal, a person possessing higher qualification will be preferred but it cannot be taken as sole criteria for preference in selection.

JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-Leave is granted.

2. These appeals are from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in O.J.C. No. 8733 of 2000 dated September 12, 2000 and final order of November 3, 2000 in Civil Review No. 137 of 2000, respectively.

3. The unsuccessful petitioner in the said O.J.C. and Civil Review is the appellant. He was temporarily appointed in the post of Extra Departmental Mail Carriers (for short, the EDMC ) in the Sithalo Branch Post Office, by the Assistant Superintendent of the Post Offices (I/C), Jagatsinghpur Sub-Division, Jagatsinghpur (for short, respondent No. 4 ) on February 1, 1997. He worked in that post till September 3, 1997. He was again appointed as a substitute in the said post for the period from May 9, 1998 to August 24, 1998 in Palasol Branch Post Office. For filling up the post on permanent basis, respondent No. 4 sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange to sponsor candidates having qualification of VIII standard passed for the post of EDMC. It may be mentioned that in the requisition to Employment Exchange there was no mention that preference will be given to the candidates who passed matriculation. The Employment Exchange accordingly sponsored 40 names having VIII class passed qualification and out of them only 13 candidates applied for the post. As the name of the appellant did not figure in the list of the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange, he filed O.J.C. No.12733 of 1998 before the High Court for a direction to respondent No. 4 to consider his candidature for the said post. Having regard to the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. etc. vs. N. Hargopal & Ors. etc. [A.I.R. 1987 SC 1227], a Division Bench of the High Court issued a direction to respondent No. 4 to consider the case of the appellant on merit and in accordance with rules and thus disposed of the writ petition on September 15, 1998. Respondent No. 5 who was also aspiring for the post, having learnt that his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange in response to the requisition of respondent No. 4, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short, the Tribunal ) for a direction to consider his candidature for the said post. On January 28, 1999, the Tribunal issued an interim direction to respondent No. 4 to consider the candidature of respondent No. 5.

4. On February 2, 1999, after considering all the applicants, the fourth respondent selected and appointed the appellant as a EDMC Palasol Branch Post Office. He joined the post on February 4, 1999, and was working as such. While so, respondent No. 5 questioned the appointment of the appellant before the Tribunal stating that inspite of being a SSC passed candidate no preference was given to him. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 it was averred that the appellant was selected on merit and he was senior in age.

5. By order dated August 18, 2000, the Tribunal set aside the appointment of the appellant by allowing O.A. No. 227 of 1999. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal the appellant filed Writ Petition (O.J.C. No. 8733 of 2000) which was dismissed on September 12, 2000. Then he filed review petition challenging the correctness of the said order but that was also dismissed on November 3, 2000. The said two orders are assailed in these appeals by special leave.

6. Mr. Manoj K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the selection of the appellant was on the basis of merit and not merely on the ground of age; he fulfilled the requirement of residence; the requisition sent by Respondent No. 5 to the Employment Exchange did not specify that matriculates would be given preference, therefore, the Tribunal and the High Court erred in setting aside his appointment.

7. Mr. Anoop Choudhary, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India and the official respondents, submitted that