In both these writ petitions the petitioners are challenging the gradation list of Section Officers (Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.1118/2008 and Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.16289/2008) published by the University . Since common questions arise in the writ petitions, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The contentions raised in both the writ petitions are identical. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1118/2008 is presently working in the cadre of Section Officer Higher Grade in the first respondent University. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.16289/2008 is also working as Section Officer Higher Grade in the same University. The notification inviting applications was published by the University on 4.12.1999. Ext.P2 in Writ Petition No.1118/2008 is the rank list published by the University after completion of the selection process. In the rank list there were five candidates belonging to Muslim community. Respondents 2 and 3 were serial Nos.6 and 10. Petitioners were serial Nos.23 and 28 and Mr. Noorudeenkutty was serial No.29. The petitioners were appointed as per order dated 5.4.2000. Prior to the appointment, the candidates eligible for community reservation were directed to produce non creamy layer certificates and accordingly the petitioners submitted the same and obtained the benefit of reservation. Altogether 20 candidates including petitioners and party respondents were appointed. The party respondents did not produce non creamy layer certificates and they were selected against open competition turn.

3. In the provisional gradation list published as per Ext.P6 by the University, seniority was assigned to respondents 2 and 3 above the petitioners. Respondent No.2 was assigned serial No.6, the third respondent was assigned serial No.11 and the petitioners were assigned serial Nos. 16 and 19.

4. The petitioners contended that they have been appointed from among the Muslim candidates by allotting 6th and 16th turn respectively. The respondents did not produce non creamy layer certificates. Therefore, at the time of finalization of the gradation list they cannot be granted the benefit of reservation and cannot be allowed positions above that of the petitioners. If any non creamy layer certificates have been produced beyond the time prescribed by the call letter, they cannot be accepted at all. Even though the petitioners filed objections in the matter, the same was rejected and the final gradation list was published as per order dated 17.4.2002, produced as Ext.P8 in Writ Petition No.1118.

5. Heard Smt. P.V. Asha and Shri Philip T. Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri P.K. Vijayamohanan learned Standing Counsel for the University, Shri Ashok M. Cherian, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Shri Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer and Shri V. Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the additional 4th respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1118/2008, Smt.P.V. Asha submitted that the method adopted by the University cannot be accepted for various reasons. It is pointed out that even though the last proviso to Rule 14(c) of KS & SSR provides for the benefit of inter- change of ranking, such inter-change can be made only between candidates of the same community who are eligible for reservation. The same

cannot be allowed to persons who are appointed against open competition turns, though they may be candidates belonging to the same community. Reliance is placed on Ext.P9 circular issued by the Public Service Commission also.

7. In fact, the very selection of the petitioners and respondents were under challenge in O.P.No.8571/2002 and connected cases, wherein the selection and appointments were quashed. The Writ Appeals were also dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, S.L.P.(C) No.5811/2007 has been filed against the common judgment in Writ Appeal No.1760/2005 and by Ext.P12, the Apex Court has granted interim order of stay also. In the light of the said order of stay, the University