Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner has by this writ application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenged the order in Annexure 6 whereby his appointment as Departmental Delivery Agent-cum-Extra Depart-mental Mail Carrier (hereinafter referred to as KDDA-cum-MDDC) has been cancelled. The case was placed for hearing before a Division Bench constituted by Mr. Justice B. P. Jha and Mr. Justice C. S, S. Sinha. Mr. Justice Jha held that the application should be allowed and the order in Annexure 1 on the basis of which the order in Annexure 6 was passed should be quashed while Mr. Justice sinha was of the view that the application ought to be dismissed The vase has, therefore, been referred to me. 2. Applications were invited for filling up posts by advertisement (Aunexure 2, dated 17-1-1978 ). Half a dozen candidates applied and they were interviewed by the Inspector of post offices, respondent No.2, who is ued the appointment letter (Annexure 3) in favour of the petitioner. One of the unsuccessful candidates approached the respondent No.3 the Superintendent of post offices, against the petitioners appointment and the Superintendent directed the appointment to be kept in abeyance pending consideration of the matter by him. The autho-rities of the respondent No.2 to make appointment was under challenge and the respondet No.3 by his letter (Annexure 4), dated 9-2-1978 held that the res-pondent No.2 was competent in this regard. The Superintendent, however, asked for a clarification as to why a separate interview letters had not been issued to the candidates indicating the place of interview. On 11-1-1978, the petitioner joined his post with the permission of the respondent No.2. The objection to the petitioners appointment was further pressed by a Member of the Parliament by his letter (Annexure A) addressed to the Past Master General, bihar. The local Mukhia also took exception to the appointment by his telegram (Annexure B ). The Post Master General, respondent No.4, thereafter wrote to the respondent No.3 vide Annexure D that the appointment had been decided to be cancelled on the ground of certain irregularities and the Inspector should be directed to make fresh appointment with the prior approval of the Superin-tendent. The Post Master General, respondent No.4, thereafter wrote to the respondent No.3 vide Annexure D that the appointment had been decided to be cancelled on the ground of certain irregularities and the Inspector should be directed to make fresh appointment with the prior approval of the Superin-tendent. Accordingly, the Superintendent directed the Inspector by his letter, (Annexure 1), to pass a cancellation order and to take steps for fresh appointment with his prior approval and the Inspector issued the impugned letter, Annexure 6. The petitioner then approached the post Master General by a representation which was rejected by the order in Annexure 7 directing the petitioner to file a fresh application for appointment. 3. One of the points taken by the petitioner in support of his application is that the impugned orders were passed as a result of the undue influence of the member of the Parliament who moved in the matter for extraneous reasons at the instance of one Kameshwar Rai, an unsuccessful candidate. In the letter, annexure D, an observation was made by the fourth respondent in favour of kameshwar Rai. But in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, it was stated that the Memb r of the Parliament had in his letter men-tioned another unsuccessful candidate and not Kameshwar Rai. Since neither the Member of the Parliament nor Kameshwar Rai has been impleaded in the case, I do not consider it expedient to go into the question as to whether the act of the Member of the Parliament in writing the letter was justified or not and whether he took that step at the instance of Kameshwar Rai. I will assume in favour of the respondents that the impugned decision has not been taken mala fide or for any extraneous reason or under undue influence of any person. The question, however, remains as to whether the impugned order are vitiated on the other grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner. 4. It is common ground that the power to make appointment to the post in question vests in the Inspector and it follows, therefore, that the petitioners appointment by Annexure 3 was made by the proper authority. The question, however, remains as to whether the impugned order are vitiated on the other grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner. 4. It is common ground that the power to make appointment to the post in question vests in the Inspector and it follows, therefore, that the petitioners appointment by Annexure 3 was made by the proper authority. It is also admitted on behalf of both side before me th ; the impugned order in Annexure 6 was issued by the Inspector in pursuance of a decision in this regard taken by the Post Master General and conveyed to him by the Superintendent, as has been expressly stated in Annexure 6 itself. Two questions, therefore, arise for consideration : (1) whether the Post Master General has any power to cancel the appointment made by appropriate authority, that is, the Inspector and (ii)whether the Inspector had committed any material irregularity in making the appointment so as to render the same vulnerable. 5. The appointment of the petitioner by Annexure 3 was temporary in nature and if his services had been terminated without giving any reason therefor, the petitioner would not have any case to agitate before this court in jurisdiction. But that is not the position. The Post Master Generals decision to cancel the appointment is admittedly based on an assumption that the Inspector had committed serious irregularities. The petitioner was not given any opportunity by any of the authorities in the Department to place his case. I, therefore, cannot assume the opinion of the respondent N o.4 as correct without examining the controversy on this point. The followi ng irregularities were mentioned in the letter Annexure D : (i) There was some irregularity in the notice of advertisement; (ii) Separate letters of interview were not iss ued to the candidates; and (iii) Kameshwar Rai had batter educational qualification and no reason has been given for prefering the petitioner over him. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, five irregularities have been detailed in support of the decision under challenge, namely, that the ad vertisement did not mention the necessary educational qualification and the maximum age limit, the venue of the interview was not mentioned in the advertisement, separate letters were not issued to she candidates and that Kameshwar Rai was educationally better qualiged. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Aftab Alam appearing for the respondents stated that in view of the irregularities in the advertisement, many intending applicants might have been misled is not applying for appointment. There appears to be no force in this argument inasmuch as the omission io mention the required educational qualification and the age-limit, could not have misled any intending qualified applicant. The omission to mention the restrictions which would limit the choice and exclude some candidates could lead to the filing of applications by unsuitable candidates, but not to the opposite result. The lact that the place of interview was not mentioned in the advertisement and separate letters in this regard were not issued to the candidates also appear to be immaterial because all the applicants admittedly appeared for their interview before the appropriate authority. 7. The only other inregulaiity alleged in the counter-affidavit which remains to be considered is that Kameshwar Rai had better qualification than the petitioner. The details of their qualifications are not mentioned either in the counter affidavit or in the annexure, but it was stated by Mr. Alam that kameshwar Rai had passed the pre-university examination while the petitioner was merely a matriculate. For sometime in Bihar, the scheme of having three years course for B. A. degree was being followed and for admission to the b. A. Class a candidate had to be successful in pre-university examination after studying for one year alter passing the matenculation examination. Mr. Alam referred to the guide-lines mentioned in Annexure 5 laid down for making an appointment to the post in question. Reliance was placed on the later part of the instruction which requires the applicant to be a resident of the village where the Extra Departmental post office functions and the education upto sixth standard has been prescribed as the minimum qualification. It is also stated that preference will be given to candidates who have studied upto a eighth standard. "it is further provided that candidate should have sufficient knowledge of regional language. The educational qualification in relation to a higher post is mentioned as seventh standard with preference to matric or equivalents. The petitioner as also kameshwar Rai admittedly fulfilled all the necessary conditions, txphasis was laid on clause (c) which states that after eliminating the ineligible candidates, best educationally qualified candidates should be given preference in selection, other things being equal. " 8. Mr. The petitioner as also kameshwar Rai admittedly fulfilled all the necessary conditions, txphasis was laid on clause (c) which states that after eliminating the ineligible candidates, best educationally qualified candidates should be given preference in selection, other things being equal. " 8. Mr. Standing counsel further referred to another part of the instructions which does not approve holding of a written test for the purpose of appointment. It was suggested that in the circumstances, the selection of the candidates ought to have been made solely on the basis of the educational qualifications. These instructions were issued in March, 1978, while the appointment in question was made in January. Mr. Standing Counsel suggested that the same rules must have been enforced earlier also. If that was the position, the respondents should have produced the relevant documents in this regard which has not been done. The instructions, therefore, cannot be held to be applicable in terms. 9. Mr. Standing counsel also urged that even independent of the instructions laying down the guidlines, the same principle in selecting candidates ought to have been applied The argument overlooks the requirement of the candidates having knowledge of arithmetic and regional language. The subject arithmatic is not compulsory in higher cases nor can the proficiency in the regional language be determined from the acadamic degrees one obtains. Further, the nature of the duty requires also of walking or cycling and, therefore, the physique of the candidates become relevant. The guidelines laid down in Annexure 5 and discussed in paragraph 7 above indicate preference for the best educationally qualified candidates only if other things are equal. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal on the ground of the appointing authority interviewing the candidates and taking other relevant factors into consideration. 10. The petitioner is entitled to succeed on my finding on the second question as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. It is, therefore, not essential to decide the first point relating to the authority of the post Master General to cancel the appointment. 11. In the result, the writ application is allowed and the orders in annexures 1 and 6 are quashed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.