A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

1. WA No.618/2012 has been filed by respondents 3 and 4, viz., the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short KPSC) and its District Officer, Kottayam challenging judgment dated 18/01/2012 in WP(C) No. 11650/2011. WA No.719/14 is filed by respondents 1, 2, 3 and 6 to 8 in the writ petition, viz., the State of Kerala and its various departments and officers. WA No.1449 of 2012 is filed by a third party after seeking leave of court challenging judgment dated 18/01/2012 in WP(C) No. 4900/2011. WA No. 1811/2013 is filed by the State of Kerala and its officers, respondents 3 and 4 in WP(C) No. 28055/10. All these appeals are arising from a common judgment by which the learned Single Judge had decided a batch of cases. However, appeals are limited only to a few cases viz., against the judgment in WP(C) Nos. 11650/2011, 4900/11 and 28055/10. The reason for challenging the judgment in WP(C) No. 11650/11 is on account of the fact that the learned Single Judge while considering the batch of cases quashed Rule 5A of KS & SSR as unconstitutional and void. In the other set of cases which include WP(C) Nos. 28055/10 and 4900/11, the learned Single Judge observed that the benefit of Rule 5A is available only to candidates who are natives of the concerned District.

2. First of all, we shall deal with the contentions urged in WP(C) No.11650/11 and the appeals arising from the said judgment viz. WA Nos.618/12 and 719/2014. The facts as disclosed in the writ petition would show that the petitioner is one among the candidates who had applied for the post of last grade servant in various departments under Kottayam Revenue District. The recruitment is District wise through KPSC. Petitioner attended the examination and was expecting high rank. According to her, she was born and brought up in Alappuzha District and after marriage, she migrated to Kottayam District and since her marriage, on 17/5/1999, she has been residing in her matrimonial home, which is in Kottayam District.

3. As per Rule 5A of KS & SSR, 5 marks is awarded as weightage for the candidates belonging to the District where the recruitment is made on District wise basis. However, the candidate will have to produce along with the application a nativity certificate issued by the competent authority in order to get the benefit of Rule 5A. Petitioner approached the Village Officer of Vechoor Village where her matrimonial home is situated and Village officer of Chenganacherry where her husband has properties and where she resides. Both the officers refused to issue such certificate on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate which showed that the petitioner was born at Mararikulam North Village of Cherthala Taluk which is in Alappuzha District. Petitioner contends that she being married and residing with her husband had migrated to Kottayam District and therefore she is a native of Kottayam District and was entitled to get a nativity certificate. Petitioner relied upon Ext.P9 guidelines by which Government had issued certain directions for providing nativity certificate. According to the petitioner, when it is stated in Ext.P9 guidelines that nativity certificate can be issued to persons having permanent residence in a particular District, petitioner is also entitled for the same. Petitioner also contended that women who have migrated to her matrimonial home would neither get the nativity certificate from the District of their parent's home on account of not being a permanent resident nor from the matrimonial home on account of not being born in that place. Hence, according to the petitioner, the Rule is discriminatory and is unconstitutional. Unless and until the word 'nativity' in the proviso to Rule 5A is interpreted in its larger view to include the word 'domicile', the Rule is liable to be declared as unconstitutional. Petitioner therefore sought for the following reliefs;

“(i) declare that 'Nativity Certificate' indicated in proviso to Rule 5A to establis