The interpretation of eligibility criteria in recruitment notifications can legitimately consider multiple achievements, and decisions made under plausible interpretations are upheld unless proven unreasonable.

J U D G M E N T

Antony Dominic, J.

This OP is filed challenging the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No.50/12 filed by the petitioner herein.

2. We heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

3. The facts which led to the filing of the OA are that by Annexure A1 notification dated 4/9/10, applications were invited from sportsmen/women who have made the specified achievements in sports/games, disciplines of which are shown in the Annexures to the notification, during the calendar years 2006-08 and 2009 for appointment in the State Government service under the scheme for the appointment of outstanding sportsmen/women. In this notification, a total of 110 vacancies were notified to be filled up and in so far as the dispute in the OA was concerned, rival claim was in relation to one of the vacancies of 2009 that was earmarked for the discipline of Ball Badminton.

4. Petitioner and the 3rd respondent applied in response to the notification. In the application, the petitioner claimed that she was the captain of the team which had represented Kerala State in the Senior National Championship for women and won first place in 2009, whereas the 3rd respondent not only claimed that she was a member of the aforesaid team, but she also claimed that she had represented the University and won third place in All India Inter University Competition in 2009. These events were included at Sl.Nos.39 and 46 of Annexure IV to Annexure A1 notification. In the selection process that was conducted, the 3rd respondent having the priority 39 and 46 was chosen over the petitioner, who had priority 39 alone. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent was eventually appointed as a Lower Division Clerk. It was challenging the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner filed the OA.

5. The Tribunal perused the terms of Annexure A1 notification and held that the view taken by the official respondents that the 3rd respondent was eligible to be given credit for priority items for 39 and 46, is a reasonable view and declined to interfere with the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent. It is this order of the Tribunal, which is impugned before us.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner took us through the various provisions of Annexure A1. According to him, going by the terms of the notification, only the highest achievement as given in Annexure IV can be taken into account. He pointed out that in view of the above prescription, since both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent had represented the Kerala State in the Senior National Championship for women and had won first place, it being priority item 39 in Annexure IV to Annexure A1 notification, that alone could have been taken into account. According to him, therefore, giving credit to the 3rd respondent for representing the University and winning third place in All India Inter University Competition is illegal. He also pointed out that in the Kerala State Senior National Championship where both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent participated in 2009 and won first prize, the petitioner was the captain of the team. Therefore, according to the counsel, since both had participated in the same event, there was a tie and in view of her captaincy, petitioner was entitled to be preferred in view of clause 2.10 of Annexure A1. According to him, therefore, the selection of the 3rd respondent and her appointment are illegal.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that the provisions of notification read in its totality would show that the candidates were entitled to take credit for any of the priority items enumerated in Annexure IV to the notification. He pointed out that if so read, the 3rd respondent was entitled to priority in respect of both it