Basheer, J.

1. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are common and closely inter related and also since they arise from the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in a batch of Original Applications, they are being heard and disposed of through this common judgment.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential for disposal of these cases may be briefly noticed.

3. Department of Electricity under the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep issued Annexure-A1 notification on April 22, 2008, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Oilman/Mazdoor. In fact, ten vacancies were notified in the said notification. Later, a corrigendum notification was issued on July 24, 2008 indicating that only seven vacancies were available. (We will deal with this issue a little later).

4. The educational qualifications prescribed for the post in the notification are extracted hereunder:

"1. SSLC pass.

2. ITI Certificate in Electrician, Wireman or Mechanic Diesel." (emphasis supplied)

5. It is beyond controversy that candidates holding Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and Mechanical Engineering were also considered for selection to the post. Ultimately, Annexure-A4 select list dated October 3, 2008 was published by the Executive Engineer (Electrical). The list comprised of ten selectees in the main list and six in the wait list.

6. This select list was challenged before the Tribunal by ITI Certificate holders contending inter alia that the entire selection process was vitiated in as much as the candidates who possessed higher and different qualifications, namely, Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, were not only brought within the zone of consideration illegally, but also many of them were in fact selected in total violation of the qualifications prescribed and notified in Annexure-A1 notification. It was further contended that Diploma holders could not have been considered at all for selection, going the Recruitment Rules.

7. In the other two Original Applications, the primary challenge was against clubbing of the vacancies for the recruitment years 2006, 2007 and 2008 under a single notification and also against granting of age relaxation by two years to all candidates. In O.A.No.17/2009, the applicant, who had submitted his application against the vacancy for the year 2006, raised a further contention that the selection process was completed in total violation of the orders issued by the Administration in Annexure-A7 and also that the select list prepared by the Recruitment Committee was shelved and a new list was published by the Executive Engineer who had no authority to do so.

8. The Administration and the Departmental Officers stoutly denied the allegation that the selection process was vitiated in any manner. It was contended that the educational qualification indicated in the notification was "the minimum requirement" and this did not debar the persons with higher qualifications being considered for appointment. It was further contended that "candidates possessing higher qualifications were not given any preference over the candidates who were having only essential qualifications and that the percentage of marks secured in Degree/Diploma exams were only considered for selection and it was reported that no additional mark was allowed for their higher qualification". The allegation that age relaxation to the extent of two years was given to some of the candidates in violation of the Rules was also denied. According to the Administration, age relaxation was given in tune with the amended Rules. We will deal with the other contentions raised by the Administration a little later.

9. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, gave its seal of approval to the selection process held by the Administration. The Tribunal took the