JUDGMENT Mishra, J. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court disposing of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus upon the official respondents herein to issue letter of appointment in the name of the petitioner, respondent herein, according to the alleged original merit list (panel) dated 21st November, 1992 prepared by the Selection Committee for the post of Panchayat Peon in Basirhat Block-II by cancelling the panel wherein the appellant herein was shown as a competent person. 2. The writ petitioner, it is not in dispute, bas the requisite qualification for the post since he studied up to and passed Class IX examination in the year 1975, besides he is a handicapped person. He got his name registered on 29th November, 1982 with the local District Employment Exchange at Basirhat and again as a handicapped person on 2nd April, 1991. According to him, ever since he had been waiting to secure a call for interview for Group-D category and at last on 16th October, 1992, he along with 19 others were included in the list of names which was forwarded by the Employment Exchange to the District Panchayat Officer, North 24 Parganas for selection in the post of Panchayat Peon in Basirhat Block-II. The District Panchayat Officer, it is alleged, issued call letters to the candidates including the writ petitioner to appear on the 21st November, 1992 before the Selection Committee. On the said date, the petitioner-respondent appeared before the Selection Committee and submitted his certificates and testimonials. According to him, he was selected and his name was included at serial No. 1 in the panel. Since he was the only physically handicapped person and was at serial No. 1, he had ever since thus thought and had every reason to think that he would get that appointment. However, on 3rd December, 1993, he came to know that a change was made in the panel and a new panel was prepared wherein the appellant was shown at serial No. 1 in stead and place of the petitioner-respondent. However, on 3rd December, 1993, he came to know that a change was made in the panel and a new panel was prepared wherein the appellant was shown at serial No. 1 in stead and place of the petitioner-respondent. Alleging that at the relevant time, the appellant had crossed the prescribed age limit and that he was a graduate and thus possessed much higher qualification than the qualification for the post of Class-IV staff/Peon in the Panchayat and also that the panel was arbitrarily, changed, the petitioner-respondent moved this Court. 3. Main contentions, as noticed by the learned Judge, however, were whether in the post of Class-IV staff and/or Peon, a graduate candidate can be allowed to offer his/her candidature and whether a graduate candidate could be allowed to contest with a candidate having qualification upto Class-VIII and whether there was any imbalance in the qualification of the candidates allowed to appear before the Selection Committee. There was also a contest, however, as to whether on the relevant date of interview, the appellant had crossed the age bar. 4. In accordance with the affidavit filed on behalf of the State-respondents, and the contentions accordingly, the Rules regarding recruitment to the post of Peon in different departments had been prescribed vide Notification No. 8321-F dated November 6, 1981 and the age of the candidates in terms of the Rules therein are calculated according to the first day of the order of recruitment. Allegations that the panel was changed, that a person possessing higher qualification could not be allowed to compete with persons having the prescribed qualification and that the handicapped petitioner made a specific allegation about edge over the appellant were contested seriously. 5. Learned single Judge has adverted to the Rules and held in agreement with the contentions of the petitioner-respondent that the appellant who possessed higher qualification (graduate) was not entitled to receive any consideration for the post of a Peon for which the maximum qualification required was that he or she should know to read and write in Bengali and at the best could be one who had read upto Class-IX. He has, accordingly, set aside the selection of the appellant and directed for reconsideration of his candidature and give due regard and concession in and weight-age which is available to a disabled person while considering the case of the petitioner-respondent. 6. He has, accordingly, set aside the selection of the appellant and directed for reconsideration of his candidature and give due regard and concession in and weight-age which is available to a disabled person while considering the case of the petitioner-respondent. 6. Going by the view of the learned single Judge, one has to accept that when posts are created or categorised and minimum qualifications for such posts are prescribed, those who do not qualify because they do not possess the minimum qualifications as well as those who do qualify because they possess the minimum qualification, but because they possess higher qualification, they can also qualify for higher category or grade of post, have to be eliminated and person who strictly fall within the range of qualification, that is, close to the minimum qualification alone, are to be considered as eligible candidates. Those who do not possess the minimum qualification, it is obvious, do not qualify unless there is some provision under which the minimum qualification is further relaxed and; after relaxation, they appear to qualify, their cases cannot be considered. Those who possess higher qualification, however, cannot be considered or said to be disqualified as they do possess the minimum qualification. Higher qualification, undoubtedly, make them eligible for higher category or grade of posts. A person who qualifies for higher category or grade of post is expected to compete for such category or grade of posts ordinarily, is not expected to sit in competition with those who qualify only for lower grade or category of posts. If they do so, and take such appointments in lower categories and grades, they always seek better opportunities and once they get any chance to go to a higher post, they immediately leave the lower post and leave the lower post to be filled in again by a procedure of selection. Person or persons who possess higher qualification, however, introduce an element of doubt for those who want to select a person for the work and job of a lower category or grade that on being selected because they possess higher qualification, they would not give same kind of service which a person having lower qualification and whose aspirations thus are not for a higher post would give. This precisely has weighed with the learned single Judge that he has chosen to hold that the appellant who possesses higher qualification does not qualify for the post for Peon for which post a much lower qualification is required. 7. Had the Selection Committee eliminated the appellant on considerations as above, and the appellant on being eliminated would have chosen to question the order, the Court could take the view as the learned Single Judge has taken and declined to interfere with the appellant's elimination by the Selection Committee on the ground that he possessed higher qualification. Rules are silent on the subject. There are Circulars occupying the field and they do give some help for the view that a person who possesses higher qualification should not be considered unless his willingness/consent is taken and he expresses categorically that he is willing to take the appointment of a lower category/ grade. Records reveal that the appellant was asked to express whether he was willing to take appointment as Peon and he had given his consent for being considered and appointed as Peon. 8. The Court may feel very strongly and think that lower grade posts be given to persons who are qualified for such posts end not to overqualified persons, yet it cannot for the reasons of its own ideas and views, interfere with the administrative discretion of the Appointing authority and persons who are involved in the selection of candidates unless it has materials to hold that such selection has been made in violation of any law or a person who is qualified has not been considered and thus equality of opportunity has been denied in other words, if no law is violated and there is no ground of discrimination so as to hold that Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India are violated, the Court cannot interfere with the selection of a person who is qualified for the post. 9. There is no material on record except averment and denial thereof that the petitioner respondent was selected and his name was Included at serial No. 1 of the panel which was original published. There is also no materials on the record except averment and denial thereof that the name of the appellant was surreptitiously introduced in a panel which was subsequently prepared. There is also no materials on the record except averment and denial thereof that the name of the appellant was surreptitiously introduced in a panel which was subsequently prepared. Nothing has been shown from which it can be inferred that the handicap of the petitioner-respondent was a ground of either reservation of the post for him or candidates like him or for any preference to him in the matter of selection for the post of Peon. It is indeed, in our view, a case in which one can have all sympathies for the petitioner-respondent but, as has been pointed out, repeatedly by the Courts; sympathy alone is not a consideration in equity to grant relief. Equitable considerations are always matters referrable to common law principles and public interest. We have good reasons to hold that learned Single Judge has erred in interfering with the selection of the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The application for stay is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Chowdhury, J. : I agree.