Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam, J. Senthil Kumar, the first respondent herein filed an application before the Tribunal seeking to quash the order passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, the first petitioner herein, dated 17.9.1999 appointing G.Nallathambi, the second respondent herein to the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) at Kanjan Kollai Branch Office, after rejecting the application of the first respondent for appointment. The said application was opposed by the petitioner Department stating that the appointment of the second respondent was based on the laid down instructions and the first respondent is not entitled to get the appointment as he obtained 248 out of 500 whereas the second respondent, the selected candidate had obtained 404 out of 500 in S.S.L.C. Examination. However, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed the petitioner Department to confine the selection to VIII passed candidates to the post of EDDA by observing that the 8th Standard should be the main criteria for filling up the above post. Assailing the said order, the petitioner Department has filed this writ petition. 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties. 3. The grievance of the first respondent who filed the O.A. before the Tribunal is that he was not selected for the post of EDDA even though he was a graduate. 4. The Tribunal has given its own strange reason for setting aside the order of appointment that 8th Standard alone should be the main criteria for filling up the post of EDDA and as such, the petitioner Department was directed to confine the selection to the 8th Standard passed candidates. The reason for giving such a direction in the words of the Tribunal is as follows: "The respondent department have confined their selection to SSLC passed candidates which in our opinion is not correct in view of the decision rendered by this Bench earlier. The reason for holding so is that if such preference is given to SSLC qualified candidates, then such a method will eliminate the VIII Standard passed candidates from being considered for EDAs posts once for all. Therefore, the preferential clause stating "preference may be given to SSLC qualified candidates" was struck down as ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution. ...... Therefore, the preferential clause stating "preference may be given to SSLC qualified candidates" was struck down as ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution. ...... In the instant case we find that the respondent department had totally eliminated consideration of VIII passed candidates for the post of EDAs, when the minimum qualification prescribed for the said post is only a pass in VIII Standard. ...... The respondent department are directed to confine their selection to VIII passed candidates to the post of EDAs." The above observations made by the Tribunal would indicate that the Tribunal has, in effect, rewritten the recruitment rules, which it is not empowered to do. 5. The relevant instructions governing the recruitment read thus: "The minimum qualification of Extra Departmental Delivery Agents, Extra Departmental Stamp Vendors and other categories EDDA should be 8th standard. Preference may be given to the candidates with matriculation qualification. No weightage should be given for any qualification higher than matriculation." 6. These instructions would not mean that the selection must be confined to the 8th Standard passed candidates only. When a minimum qualification is prescribed along with a further stipulation that a person possessing a qualification higher than the minimum would be preferred, if other things are equal, the authorities engaged in making the selection would be fully justified in giving preference to the person possessing matriculation qualification. 7. The Tribunal seems to think that the matriculation qualification is a disqualification. This concept is wholly fallacious. It is not for the Tribunal to direct the authority not to give preference to the matriculation qualification when the possession of such additional qualification is relevant and would enable the employer to choose a person who would be more suited for discharging the duties attached to the post by reason of possessing the higher educational qualification. 8. Having regard to the nature of the duties attached to the post, the preference accorded for the higher qualification is only matriculation which is, in our view, practically the minimum in most employments. If that is the minimum qualification for employment under the State Government, giving preference to a person possessing matriculation qualification, which is higher than the 8th Standard, is in no way unreasonable or arbitrary nor has it resulted in denial of any right to any other person. 9. If that is the minimum qualification for employment under the State Government, giving preference to a person possessing matriculation qualification, which is higher than the 8th Standard, is in no way unreasonable or arbitrary nor has it resulted in denial of any right to any other person. 9. When there are sufficient persons who possess the matriculation qualification, which is higher than the minimum of VIII Standard and they had offered themselves for being considered for the post for which the applications had been invited, a direction compelling the petitioner Department to prefer a person who has passed 8th Standard alone ignoring others who have acquired additional qualification is, on the face of it, totally unjustified. 10. This Court in W.P.No.3689 of 2001 decided on 30th January 2002 set aside a similar direction given by the Tribunal. 11. Hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal setting aside the selection process on the ground that only persons who had passed 8th Standard should be considered, is set aside. 12. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.23075 of 2001 is closed.