JUDGMENT : N. Prusty, J. - The Petitioner, who was Respondent No. 4 in O.A. No. 751 of 2002 has filed W.P. (C) No. 1200 1 of 2003 challenging the order dated 12.09.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.09.2003 as well as the order of his termination dated 18.11.2004 and for a direction of his reinstatement in the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent-cum-Mail Carrier (hereinafter referred to as "EDDA-cum-MC"). 2. The brief facts of the case (W.P. (C) No. l200l of 2003) are that opposite party No. 4 (applicant in O.A.) approached the Tribunal challenging the selection and appointment of the present Petitioner (respondent No A in the O.A.) as EDDA-cum-M.C. of Mahajanpur Branch Office in account of Bahugram Sub-Post Office under Cuttack South Division, on the ground that the present Petitioner secured less percentage of marks that him and since the main criteria for selection of EDDA-cum-M.C. is, securing higher percentage of marks in the qualifying examination, the selection of the present Petitioner was arbitrary, mala fide and non-application of mind. Hence, the same ought to be quashed. The opposite party No. 4 (applicant) had also prayed for a direction to Respondent-opposite party No. 3 to appoint him in the service with effect from the date the present Petitioner (respondent No. 4) had joined the post. 3. Opposite party Nos. l to 3 and the Petitioner filed their written version in the O.A. separately contending therein that respondent/respondent No. 4 was selected out of 26 candidates who had responded to the vacancy notification and the Petitioner secured 48.66 percentage of marks in the H.S.C. Examination and hence provisionally selected for the post as most meritorious out of all the candidates. On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, opposite party No. 2 carried out review of the selection made by opposite party No. 3. It was observed that there were some defects in the selection made to the post. The records of selection revealed that the opposite party No. 4 secured 342 marks excluding extra optional paper out of 700 marks in H.S.C. Examination, which comes to 48.85. It was observed that there were some defects in the selection made to the post. The records of selection revealed that the opposite party No. 4 secured 342 marks excluding extra optional paper out of 700 marks in H.S.C. Examination, which comes to 48.85. The Petitioner secured 365 marks excluding the extra additional paper out of 750 marks i.e. 48.66 percentages of marks and also opposite party No. 4 was ignored because there was remark recorded against his name by opposite party No. 3 that he was serving in Water Supply P.H.D., Cuttack. On checking of the percentage of marks secured by both the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4, it was found that opposite party No. 4 had secured more marks than the Petitioner and fulfilled all eligibility conditions for the post. The appointment of the Petitioner was therefore terminated with effect from 18.11.2002 to rectify the mistake. 4. The Petitioner in his counter affidavit filed in the O.A., had stated that it is not correct on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to state that for the post in question, the basis of selection is mark secured in the H.S.C. Examination when qualification required for the post as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules is passing Class-VIII standard. It has also been stated by him that statistically 48.85 % of marks secured by opposite party No. 4 and 48.66% of marks secured by him could have been rounded up to 49% and then the selection should have been made by selecting the younger person, which was required for the post of EDDA. More so, because of the requirement for the post f EDDA-cum-M.C., a youth should be preferred. It is also submitted by him that opposite party No. 4 was guilty of suppressing the facts from the authorities that he had been served in the Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government and on that ground his candidature was liable to be rejected. 5. Learned Tribunal after taking into account the pleadings of the parties and the submissions advanced by their Advocates finally came to a conclusion that the action of opposite party Nos. 5. Learned Tribunal after taking into account the pleadings of the parties and the submissions advanced by their Advocates finally came to a conclusion that the action of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 in terminating the service of the Petitioner to correct a palpable mistake was legally valid and no prejudice was caused to anyone in that process and accordingly found that no illegality in the action taken by the opposite parties to terminate the service of the Petitioner under Rule 6 relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5918 of 1997 decided on 24.12.2001 and in the case of Brij Mohan Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in SCLJ 2001 (2) 148 and finally it was observed by the learned Tribunal that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to make selection of the most suitable candidate for the post of EDDA-cum-MC, Mahajanpur Branch Office from out of 26 candidates who had responded to the vacancy circular for the post. 6. The Petitioner had also filed another writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No. 120 19 of 2003, challenging the order dated 12.09.2003 in O.A. No. 1024 of 2002 (wherein he was applicant) passed by the Tribunal. In the said O.A. opposite party No. 4 (applicant) had challenged the order dated 18.11.2002 terminating his service as EDDA-cum-MC with a prayer for quashing the same and for his reinstatement in the service with all consequential benefits. 7. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 had filed counter affidavit stating therein that opposite party No. 4 had secured 48.66 % of marks whereas another candidate namely, Shri. N. Singh had secured 48.85% of marks in the H.S.C. Examination. They had further stated that after receipt of notice from the Tribunal in O.A. No. 751 of 2002 (which is the subject matter in W.P.W. (c) No. 1200 1 of 2003), the Department/opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 reviewed the selection and the appointment of the applicant had been terminated as the selection was not in order and that he had already been relieved from the post of EDDA-M.C., Mahajanpur B.O. with effect from 18.11.2002. The said O.A. was taken up for hearing by the Tribunal along with O.A. No. 751 of 2002 filed by Narayan Prasad Singh challenging the selection and appointment of the present Petitioner. The said O.A. was taken up for hearing by the Tribunal along with O.A. No. 751 of 2002 filed by Narayan Prasad Singh challenging the selection and appointment of the present Petitioner. Since by order dated 12.09.2003 passed in O.A. No. 751 of 2002, the Tribunal upheld the action of the Department in canceling the selection and appointment of the present Petitioner and observed that the Department/ opposite parties are at liberty to make a selection of the most suitable candidate for the post of EDDA-cum-MC, Mahajanpur B.O. from out of the 26 candidates who had responded to the vacancy circular for the post and accordingly dismissed 0. A. No. 1024 of 2002. Hence the Petitioner filed a separate writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No. 120 19 of 2003 challenging the said order dated 12.09.2003 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1024 of 2002. 8. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal analogously. 9. Heard Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate lading Mr. Deepak Dey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Jee, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Dhal Samant, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 4. 10. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel submits that opposite party No. 4 filed O.A. No. 751 of 2002 before the Tribunal. During tendency of the said O.A., opposite party No. 5 vide his letter-dated 18.11.2002 terminated the service of the Petitioner without giving any opportunity for filing show cause or assigning any reason thereof. The Petitioner filed O.A. No. 1024 2002 before the Tribunal challenging the legality of order of his termination dated 18.11.2002. The order of termination without any notice to show cause was contrary to the Circular issued by opposite party No. 1 dated 09.12.2002 as well as violative of the principle of natural justice. The Petitioner, who has been selected, had secured 48.65% of marks against opposite party No. 4 having secured 48.85% of marks, which is a very marginal difference. As such the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are completely unjust and illegal. Further more, the principle of natural justice having not been followed, the order terminating the service of the Petitioner is completely illegal and unjust. It has been further submitted by Mr. As such the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are completely unjust and illegal. Further more, the principle of natural justice having not been followed, the order terminating the service of the Petitioner is completely illegal and unjust. It has been further submitted by Mr. Mohanty that since the minimum eligibility criteria for selection, so far as educational qualification is concerned, being Class-VIII and higher percentage of marks secured in H.S.C. examination having not been fixed as the sole basis for such selection, the Tribunal has erred in law in directing opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to make fresh selection of most suitable candidate from out of 26 candidates who had responded to the vacancy circular for the post. 11. Mr. Dhal Samant, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 4, on the other hand, submits that since both the Petitioner and opposite party No. 4 have passed Matriculation Examination, even though the eligibility criteria for selection of EDDA-cum-MC is Class VIII, no illegality has been committed by the Department/ opposite parties in terminating the service of the Petitioner, since the present opposite party No. 4 has secured more percentage of marks in the Matriculation Examination than the present Petitioner. It is also submitted by him that the Recruitment Rules for EDDA-cum-MC provide for review by the higher authority, if there is gross irregularity and illegality in the process of selection and the concerned authority has right to cancel the selection process and appointment made in pursuance thereof and ordered for fresh selection. Any administrative order is always capable of being reviewed by the higher authority. 12. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Shri. Surinder Singh v. Union of India and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2001, has observed that: Guidelines/norms/instructions clearly stipulate that if the candidates, who have passed matriculation examination, are available for selection to the posts of EDDA, the selection should be made by the Selection Committee on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in preferential qualification (i.e. matriculation) and in the absence of matriculate candidates, the selection has to be made on the basis of essential qualification, viz., 8th standard. 13. 13. It has also been observed that: In our view, in service jurisprudence, the prescription of preferential qualification not only refers to numeric superiority but is essentially related to better mental capacity, ability and maturity to shoulder the responsibilities, which are entrusted to the candidate after their selection to a particular post. All the more, it is important for efficient and effective administration. The basic object of prescribing a minimum qualification is to put a cut off level for a particular job in accordance with the minimum competency required for the performance of that job. The object of prescribing preferential qualification is to select the best amongst the better candidates who possess more competence than the others. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 puts a limit with respect to preferential qualification by way of a clear stipulation that no preference should be given to the qualification above matriculation. Hence, the preferential qualification was considered to be more effective and efficient and also it was a clear assumption that candidate possessing the same is best suited for the' post in question. 14. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has referred to the decision in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P. Dilip Kumar and Another wherein at paragraph-13 it has been held that: There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the employer preferring a candidate with higher qualification for service. It is well settled by a catena of decisions, that classification on the basis of higher educational qualification to achieve higher administrative efficiency is permissible under our constitutional scheme. 15. In Paragraph-15 of the said decision it has been observed that: It is true that notwithstanding the preference rule it is always open to the recruiting agency to prescribe a minimum eligibility qualification with a view to demarcating and narrowing down the field of choice with the ultimate objective of permitting candidate with higher qualification to enter the zone of consideration. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri. Surindr Singh v. Union of India and Ors. no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in allowing the Original Application filed by opposite party No. 4 and disposing of the same with the observation that "respondent Nos. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri. Surindr Singh v. Union of India and Ors. no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in allowing the Original Application filed by opposite party No. 4 and disposing of the same with the observation that "respondent Nos. l and 2 are at liberty to make selection of most suitable candidate for the pose of EDDA-cum-MC, Mahajanpur B.O. from out of 26 candidates who had responded to the vacancy circular for the post. 16. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India has also supported the above contention of Mr. Dhal Samant, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 4. 17. We have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. In the instant case, as per the terms of requisition/notification the eligibility condition for EDDA-cum-MC is that a candidate "must have passed Class-VIII standard, Matric or equivalent will be preferred". Both the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 have passed H.S.C.Examination. The Petitioner has secured 48.66% marks whereas the opposite party No. 4 has.secured 48.85% marks in H.S.C.Examination. It need not be said that where any Rule or Guideline provides preference in respect of higher qualification, it only means that all other requirements being equal, a person possessing higher educational qualification shall be preferred even though it cannot be considered as sole criteria for preference in selection and appointment, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bibhudutta Mohanty v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 94 (2002) CLT 688 (S.C.). 18. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties, keeping in view the clear position of the Rule as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court and the fact that both the Petitioner and opposite party No. 4 have passed H.S.C.Examination, the Petitioner secured less marks than the opposite party No. 4 in the H.S.C.Examination, we are of the considered opinion that since both the candidates are having Matriculation qualification and fulfill other conditions, there is no illegality, irregularity or manifest error of law in the impugned orders in both the writ petitions, which would call for any interference by this Court. 19. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain both the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. 19. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain both the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. B.P. Das, J. 20. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed