Judgment :- R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The 1st respondent is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering which fact was specifically mentioned by him in his application. The post for which he applied was in the Integral Coach Factory. The advertisement inviting applications was issued in August 1992. 2. The qualifications as set out in that notification of 4th August 1992 reads thus, " 3. QUALIFICATION : For all categories. (a) Course completed Act Apprentices who have successfully passed the NAC Examination. ( NAC Certificate) ( OR ) (b) ITI passed candidates from recognised Training Institute (NCVT Certificate) ( OR ) (c) Diploma in Mechanical/Electrical/Electronics Engineering (NOT LESS THAN 3 YRS. DURATION (or) its equivalent and recognised by State/ Central government. (d) Pass in Matriculation or its equivalent or X Std. Under the 10 + 2 System NOTE : Preference will be given to technically qualified candidates. Matriculates will be considered only when sufficient number of technically qualified candidates are not available. " 3. It has been stated by the petitioner before us that in response to that notification 15,720 applications were received of which 3,882 applicants were technically qualified and those persons with technical qualifications alone were called for the written examinations. The number of posts for which the selection was required to be made is 176. None of those who had merely passed the matriculation but did not possess a technical qualification was called for the written examination. 4. The 1st respondent before us, who had a diploma in Civil Engineering, was allowed to sit for the examination and his name was included in the select list. However, before any appointment could be made from among the persons in the select list, it was noticed that he had a diploma only in Civil Engineering and not in Mechanical, Electrical or Electronics Engineering. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to him asking him as to why his name should not be deleted from the select list as he was not a diploma holder in Mechanical, Electrical or Electronics Engineering. 5. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to him asking him as to why his name should not be deleted from the select list as he was not a diploma holder in Mechanical, Electrical or Electronics Engineering. 5. His plea in response to that notice was that he was a matriculate and since matriculates were also eligible to sit for the examination and also secure appointment, the fact that he does not have a diploma in any one of the other three branches should not be held against him and that he should be appointed to the post. 6. He was not offered any appointment. He approached this Court with a writ petition which was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has held that as the minimum eligible qualification was only 10th standard and the applicant before it has that qualification, the inclusion of his name in the panel was lawful and his name, therefore, could not be deleted there from. 7. Before us it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that those who were called for the examination were only those who were technically qualified, that no one with a mere matriculation was called for the exam, and it would be wholly invidious to retain the name of the respondent on the select list on the ground that he was a matriculate when all others who had matriculation qualification had been excluded from the examination. As noticed already there were 15,720 applications of which only 3,882 had a technical qualification. The remaining about 11,300 applicants were apparently mere matriculates and had therefore been excluded from the examination. 8. Counsel further pointed out that the diploma which makes the person eligible by being considered as being in possession of a technical qualification was a diploma in Mechanical, Electrical and Electronics Engineering and not in any other branch of engineering. The 1st respondent was allowed to sit for the examination only on the ground that he held a diploma but while so permitting, the management had committed a mistake in not taking note of the fact that his diploma was only in Civil Engineering and not in other three branches of engineering mentioned in the advertisement. The 1st respondent was allowed to sit for the examination only on the ground that he held a diploma but while so permitting, the management had committed a mistake in not taking note of the fact that his diploma was only in Civil Engineering and not in other three branches of engineering mentioned in the advertisement. The moment that error came to the notice of the management, which was at a stage prior to the issue of letter of appointment, necessary measures were taken and the deletion of the name of the respondent from the select list was therefore lawful. 9. The Tribunal, in the course of its order, was impressed solely by the fact that the matriculate is also eligible to apply. It has wholly excluded for consideration the fact that all other matriculates who did not have a technical qualification had been excluded from the examination and such exclusion was not in any way discriminatory. The fact that the first respondent was selected and his name was included in the selection list at a time when the management had erroneously failed to notice that his diploma was in Civil Engineering, has been held by the Tribunal to amount to almost a estoppel against the management. 10. We do not find it possible to approve of the view so taken by the Tribunal. 11. When recruitment is done it is open to any employer to specify the qualification which the prospective candidates are required to possess. It is equally open to the employer to test the suitability of the candidate by holding a written examination or otherwise. It is also open to that employer to limit the number of candidates permitted to take the examination, if a very large number of candidates apply and some preliminary screening is required to be done especially where a preferential qualification is prescribed. It is certainly open to the employer, when it receives large number of application, to say that only candidates who possess the preferential qualification shall be allowed to sit for the written tests and exclude other persons who possess only the general qualification. 12. It is certainly open to the employer, when it receives large number of application, to say that only candidates who possess the preferential qualification shall be allowed to sit for the written tests and exclude other persons who possess only the general qualification. 12. The decision taken by the management to limit the persons to be permitted to take examination only to those who are technically qualified cannot be said to be in any way illegal particularly when the advertisement clearly sets out that matriculates will be considered only if technically qualified candidates are not available. 13. The inclusion of the first respondent among the candidates who were allowed to take the examination and subsequently in the list of persons selected being based on an error in not noticing the fact that his diploma was in Civil Engineering, the steps taken by the employer to correct that error, after complying with the requirements of natural justice, cannot be faulted. 14. The reasoning of the Tribunal that since a matriculate can apply, the name of the first respondent should be retained on the select list having regard to the fact that he was a matriculate cannot be approved. Persons who had mere matriculation as qualification had been excluded altogether from the competition when the examination was limited only to those who possess the prescribed technical qualification. 15. Although we are a little surprised that the employer should have excluded from the list Civil Engineering, when among the posts for which the applications have been called for is the post of Carpenter, nevertheless, ordinarily, it is not for the Court or the Tribunal to sit in judgment over the qualification required for a post. That is a matter for the employer. The other posts mentioned in the application are posts for which training in civil engineering, prima facie, cannot be regarded as a qualification for appointment to those posts. Those posts are welder, fitter, machinist, blacksmith, electroplater, serang, electrical fitter, power driver and AC driver mechanic. A person with a Civil Engineering diploma could not offer himself for competition for an appointment in one of these trades. It could be only for the post of Carpenter and that in fact is the trade for which applicant before the Tribunal had specifically applied. A person with a Civil Engineering diploma could not offer himself for competition for an appointment in one of these trades. It could be only for the post of Carpenter and that in fact is the trade for which applicant before the Tribunal had specifically applied. By reading the qualification required of the applicants, the impression one gathers is that the post of Carpenter was not to be filled from among the diploma holders in any of the three branches of engineering named therein, but from among those who were in possession of NCVT certificates. 16. Even if we were to assume that the post was one for which a diploma in Civil Engineering would be suitable nevertheless that cannot be a ground for us to compel an employer to employ a person with that qualification which the employer construes to be unacceptable. The post for which the application was made is in the Integral Coach Factory which is engaged in the manufacture of railway wagons and other equipment for the railways. The trades in which it employs persons are trades which are relevant for the manufacturing process in which it is engaged. The diploma in the branches of engineering mentioned as requisite qualification are branches which are prima facie relevant to the nature of the activity undertaken by the factory. The Court prima facie is required to accept the judgment of the employer unless that decision is shown to be malafide or was patently illegal. 17. We, therefore, do not find it possible to uphold the order of the Tribunal. The same is set aside. The Writ petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.