IMPORTANT POINTS
One particular scheme for acquiring the post graduation is allegedly easier when compared to the other cannot be a reason to treat them differently, taking into account the purpose sought to be achieved. Therefore, it cannot be held as violative of either Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In fact, Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 would reveal that the `basis of marking' was revised thereunder, virtually, taking into account such complaints. But, at the same time, we are of the considered view that on that reason no interference is invited with Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 and also the basis of marking followed by the PSC in the selections involved in the cases on hand. Sajan N. Menon's case (supra) would reveal that this Court repelled the challenge against the 'basis of marking' wherein the weightage was given for academic marks based on a particular grading system.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. The third respondent in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015 viz., the Kerala Public Service Commission (for brevity `PSC' only) filed O.P. (KAT)No.442 of 2017 against the order passed thereon by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. O.P.(KAT)No.317 of 2018 is filed by the applicants in O.A.No.435 of 2018 against the order passed thereon by the same Tribunal. Whether the PSC is empowered to give credit for academic marks and make it as `basis of marking' along with the marks secured in the written test/OMR Test and in the interview in a selection for teaching posts and allied questions crop up for consideration, in the captioned Original Petitions. The posts concerned are Higher Secondary School Teacher (Mathematics) (Senior) and Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior), in different subjects, in the Higher Secondary Education Department. As per the order in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015 the Tribunal directed the PSC viz., the 3rd respondent therein to revise the ranked list concerned viz., Annexure-A2 therein by excluding the grace marks granted for the marks scored in the qualifying examination. Review of advice and appointment based on the revised rank list, following the aforesaid direction, was also directed to be completed within the time stipulated thereunder. The PSC is before us challenging the said order.

2. In O.A.No.435 of 2018 the challenge was against Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 issued by the PSC introducing 'basis of marking' which permits grant of grace marks out of 30 and to add marks thus granted to the candidate to the marks obtained by the candidate concerned in the written test and the interview conducted as part of the selection process. Relying on the common order dated 2.5.2018 in O.A.Nos.1601 and 2324, of 2016 of a Division Bench of the Tribunal, rendered relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sajan N. Menon v. State of Kerala reported in 2007 (4) KLT 126 the Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.435 of 2018. The order in O.A. (Ekm.)No.367 of 2015 is dated 17.5.2017 and it is rendered by a Single Member and the order in O.A.No.435 of 2018 is dated 19.6.2018 rendered by a Division Bench, of the Tribunal. Thus, it is obvious that the orders impugned in the captioned original petitions are conflicting in nature and they are passed in the facts and circumstances stated infra.

O.P.(KAT)No.442 of 2017

3. The applicants in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are Post Graduates (MSc.) in Mathematics with BEd. and SET qualification. They responded to Annexure-A1 (in Ext.P1) notification dated 31.12.2010 for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Mathematics) (Senior) and allied categories, with category No.457/10. OMR Test was conducted, as part of the selection process, on 2.2.2013 and it was followed by an interview. Annexure-A2 ranked list was published on 16.2.2015 by including 702 candidates in the main list with necessary supplementary lists for reservation communities and differently abled categories. By the time the applicants/respondents 1 to 3 herein approached the Tribunal some of the rank holders were advised from Annexure-A2 ranked list. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are included in the main list as rank Nos.319, 377 & 442 respectively. As stated earlier, they felt aggrieved by the 'basis of marking' and according to them, Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 (Annexure-A5 in Ext.P1) carries a criteria for awarding marks that provides for giving grace marks for the marks scored in the prescribed qualifying examination. It is their case that it was introduced after the commencement of the selection process in question and despite that it was made the `basis of marking' in the selection in question. It is their contention that but for following Annexure-A5 as the 'basis of marking' they would have been ranked at Sl.Nos.187, 176 & 196 in Annexure-A2 ranked list (in Ext.P1).

4. Respondents 1 to 3 herein assailed the said action in O.A.(Ekm)No.367 of 2