Judgment :- Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner is a resident of Agatti Island of Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The 2nd respondent Executive Engineer, Department of Electricity, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti published a notice dated 24-9-2001 inviting applications for the post of Chargeman/Meter Mechanic/Electrician/Mechanic under the Lakshadweep Electricity Department from qualified local candidates from Lakshadweep Island. A copy of the said notice is Ext. P1 in the original petition. In response to Ext. P1 notice, the petitioner submitted application. He was called for a written test and he passed the written test. Thereafter, he was called for interview by an Interview Board on 13-3-2001. According to the petitioner, his name was included in the select list prepared by the Interview Board. However, no further action was taken by the respondents and hence the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19-6-2001 to the 2nd respondent requesting him to expedite the matter and to appoint him at the earliest. The 2nd respondent did not give any reply to the said representation and hence the petitioner sent another representation to the Ist respondent in Aug. 2001 requesting him to give direction to publish the result. Still the respondents did not take any action in the matter. In view of the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner sent a lawyer’s notice dated 19-9-2001. Since there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 930/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. After the filing of the said original application the petitioner received a reply notice dated 11-10-2001 from the 2nd respondent along with a copy of notice No. F. No. 36/1/95-Estt/Ele alleged to have been published in the notice board of the department. True Copies of the said notices are Exts. P7 and P8 in the original petition. In Ext. P7 reply notice is stated that candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualifications were found recommended by the Interview Board and hence the competent authority did not accept the recommendation and cancelled the list of candidates prepared by the Interview Board. It is also stated that the department proposes to conduct fresh test and interview for the selection of candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications. In Ext. It is also stated that the department proposes to conduct fresh test and interview for the selection of candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications. In Ext. P8 notice issued by the 2nd respondent it is stated as follows :- "It is for the information of all concerned that the list of candidates proposed by the Interview Board for the selection of candidate to the post of Electrician/Chargeman conducted in this office from 12-3-2001 to 13-3-2001 is hereby cancelled due to certain administrative reasons". On receipt of Exts. P7 and P8 notices O.A. No. 930/2001 was amended by the applicant. But O.A. No. 930/2001 was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 8th November, 2001. The oder dated 8th November, 2001 passed byh the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No 930/2001 is under challenge in this original petition. The prayers in this original petition are: i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exts. P7, P8 and P10; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the existing vacancy of Electrician in the Department of Electricity, U.T. of Lakshadweeo, Kavaratti a n d iii) to grant such other and further reliefs as are warranted by the circumstances of this case and deemed proper in the interest of justice. 2. Justifying the action of the respondents in canceling the selection, respondents 1 and 2 have stated in their counter affidavit as follows :- "4. In response to the notification issued for filling up the 2 vacancies, 62 candidates appeared for the written test held on 12-3-02. As decided by the Interview Board, the candidates, who secured 40% marks alone were called for the interview and as such 12 persons, who got 40% or more marks, participated in the interview. Many of them should not have been called for the interview as they did not possess the requisite service experience or as age barred as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. Many of them should not have been called for the interview as they did not possess the requisite service experience or as age barred as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. As a result of this, it was observed that several other candidates, who satisfied the qualification and experience as prescribed under the relevant Recruitment Rules might have been left out and not called for the interview merely for the reason that the persons who obtained more marks in the written test (without possessing the minimum prescribed experience) happened to be called for the interview. In the said circumstances, it was observed that the zone of consideration for the interview itself was likely to be changed, had the Interview Board not committed the mistake. It was considering all the facts and figures, that the Administration decided to cancel the selection already held, deciding to hold it afresh. It is submitted that there is absolutely no element of mala fides or arbitrariness in the proceedings in this regard and Ext. P8 was issued as there was no other alternative." 3. By an order dated 6-2-2002 this Court directed the respondents to file a statement clarifying the following points :- "1. The names of 12 candidates called for interview; 2. Out of the 12 candidates called for interview, how many were eligible and qualified and who are they ?; 3. The names of candidates included in the select list by the interview board and their respective ranks; 4. Whether the petitioner was qualified and eligible for being selected for appointment and whether he was included in the select list ?” In compliance with the order dated 6-2-2002 the respondents have filed a statement furnishing the names of 12 candidates included in the select list in the order of their merit. The petitioner is Sl. No. 6 in the said list. It is also stated in the said statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that out of the 12 candidates ranked in the order of their merit based on the performance in the written examination and interview, only the candidates at Sl. Nos. 6,7 and 11 were actually qualified. It is also stated that the petitioner whose name was included as Sl.No.6 was qualified. 4. Nos. 6,7 and 11 were actually qualified. It is also stated that the petitioner whose name was included as Sl.No.6 was qualified. 4. From the facts stated above, it is clear that on the basis of the written test and the interview a select list was prepared in the order of merit. Out of the 12 candidates included in the select list only 3 candidates namely, Sl.No. 7, Mr. T. Akbar Ali (petitioner herein), Sl. No. 7, Mr. Ahmed Manikfar V.K. and Sl. No. 11, Mr. Abdul Hameed were qualified under the Recruitment Rules and the remaining 9 candidates were not qualified. Among the three qualified candidates, petitioner secured the highest rank. 5. The question that arises for consideration whether the respondents were justified in canceling the entire selection on the ground that some candidates who participated in the selection and who were actually included in the select list were unqualified for the post. It has to be noted that, as against two posts, three candidates included in the select list were found to be qualified. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was qualified and was duly selected and he was not responsible for the failure of the respondents in properly scrutinising the qualifications of some candidates before they were allowed to appear in the written test and interview. It is contended that since a select list has been prepared by the Interview Board on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the written test and the interview and since there are sufficient number of qualified hands among the selected candidates for being appointed against the notified vacancies, there is no justification for cancelling the entire selection. It is also contended that the respondents ought to have appointed the qualified candidates in the order of their rank in the select list. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Munna Roy v. Union of India and others, 2000 SCC (L&S) 1098 and contends that if the administrative authority took a decision and the reasons for such decision were erroneous, such a decision could be interfered with by a court of law. According to the learned counsel, the reason stated in the counter affidavit for canceling the select list is erroneous. According to the learned counsel, the reason stated in the counter affidavit for canceling the select list is erroneous. However, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the respondents were justified in canceling the selection and proposing fresh selection because 9 out of the 12 candidates included in the select list were unqualified for the post. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondents relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the District collector & Chairman Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vizianagaram & another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, JT 1990(2) S.C. 169. We have carefully read the said judgment. In our view the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that the respondents committed an in error in canceling the entire selection merely on the ground that some unqualified candidates happened to participate in the written test and the interview. They participated in the written test and the interview due to the negligence or default of the respondents. As against two notified vacancies three qualified candidates are available for appointment. There is absolutely no basis for the statement in the counter affidavit that several other qualified candidates might have been left out and not called for interview merely for the reason that persons who obtained mere marks in the written test but did not possess the minimum prescribed experience happened to be called for the interview. There is no averment in the counter affidavit that more than 12 candidates had secured 40% or above marks in the interview. Hence it cannot be presumed that the zone of consideration for the interview was likely to be changed had the unqualified candidates not been called for interview. The assumption in the counter affidavit that the mistake was committed by the Interview Board appears to be wrong. Whether the candidates possessed the prescribed experience qualification was to be considered by the authority concerned before calling them for written test and interview. It is not the function of the Interview Board constituted to assess the merit. Hence instead of proposing a fresh selection the respondents should have proceeded to make appointment from among the qualified candidates included in the select list in the order of their merit. It is not the function of the Interview Board constituted to assess the merit. Hence instead of proposing a fresh selection the respondents should have proceeded to make appointment from among the qualified candidates included in the select list in the order of their merit. Such a procedure alone would be fair and just in the circumstances of the case. It is also significant that the petitioner has already become overaged and he will not be in a position to apply for any fresh selection. The result of allowing the respondents to cancel the selection already made and to conduct a fresh selection would be to exclude the petitioner from any future selection. 7. In the above circumstances, we hold that the cancellation ordered in Ext. P8 will apply only to the selection of unqualified hands included in the select list and that it will not affect the selection of Mr. T. Akbar Ali, Mr. Ahamed Manikfan V.K. and Mr. Abdul Hameed (Sl. Nos. 6.7 and 11 respectively). The impugned order Ext. P10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. Ext. P8 notice also is set aside to the extent it affects Mr. T. Akbar Ali, Mr. Ahamed Manikfan V.K. and Mr. Abdul Hameed. We also direct respondents 1 and 2 to make appointment to the notified vacancies from among the above mentioned persons in the order of their merit. This shall be done within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. The original petition stands allowed in the above terms.