Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

The petitioner in OP (KAT) No.149 of 2015 is the unsuccessful applicant in OA No.739 of 2015 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The two unsuccessful applicants in OA No.585 of 2015 have filed individual OPs: OP (KAT) Nos.168 and 169 of 2015. All three are aggrieved by the Orders, dated 06.05.2015 and 08.04.2015. Because the issue in all the three OPs is identical, we are disposing them of through a common judgment. Though we have taken the pleadings and documents in OP (KAT) No.149 of 2015 as the bases for our discussion, we will refer to the facts of the other cases, too, wherever it is necessary.

OP (KAT) No.149 of 2015:

2. Sherry M. S., the petitioner, is a graduate who joined the Department of Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau on 02.04.2012 as an office attendant. In the course of time, the employer issued Annexure A1 notification, dated 12.06.2014, inviting applications for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police from "the Graduate Ministerial Staff of Police and Vigilance Department" with two-years' service.

3. Sherry, claiming to have been qualified, applied for the post notified online through Annexure A1. She faced a written test and was qualified; thereafter, she faced physical efficiency test and was qualified in that, too. Thus, she found herself among the candidates shortlisted for interview.

4. Just one day before Sherry could be interviewed, she received Annexure A6 communication from the 1st respondent that her application was rejected: an office attendant cannot be considered an employee of the "ministerial wing". Sherry stood disqualified.

5. Aggrieved, Sherry filed O.A.No.739 of 2015 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, assailing Annexure A6. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A by Ext.P2 order, dated 06.5.2015.

OP (KAT) Nos.168 and 169 of 2015:

6. Jancy Mathew and Dini A.P., the petitioners in these Original Petitions, too, are graduates employed in Police Department and Vigilance & Anti-corruption Bureau respectively. They had also applied to the post with identical credentials as Sherry has, faced rejection, and finally lost their contest before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal's Findings:

The Tribunal dismissed Sherry's plea; it held that Sherry belongs only to the last grade, but not to the ministerial category. So was the finding against Jancy Mathew and Dini A.P., as well.

The Submissions:

The Petitioners':

7. Sri Ibrahim, the learned counsel for Sherry M.S., has contended that Annexure A6 order is perverse and unsustainable. According to him, Intra-departmentally and inter-departmentally, an office attendant is treated, all along, as a "ministerial staff" member. If the first respondent had entertained any `genuine' doubt about the definitional dynamics of the term "ministerial staff", he ought to have, at least, consulted the second respondent about the petitioner's nature of duties.

8. Sri Ibrahim has also brought to our notice GO [Ms] No. 5566/HOME, dated 11.02.1966, to hammer home his contention that this order does not exclude graduates employed in the department--even in the cadre of office attendants--from being considered to the post. He has also brought to our notice G.O. dated 12.11.1968, which, according to him, clarifies that the vacancies set apart for in-service candidates are meant for "such members of the ministerial staff" who satisfy the qualification prescribed for the post.

9. The learned counsel for Jancy Mathew and Dini A.P., have adopted Sri Ibrahim's submissions.

Respondents':

The Second Respondent's:

10. The learned Government Pleader has contended that the post of Office Attendant is included in the "Last Grade Service" and does not come under "Ministerial Category" in the subordinate service. As per Rule 16A of KSR-Vol I, "Last Grade Service" means, the learned Government Pleader asserts, service in any post in the Kerala Last Grade Service, published under GO (P) No.82/public (Rules) Department, dated 08.03.1966, in part I of the Kerala