JUDGMENT V. Giri, J. 1. There are certain common issues which arise for consideration in these cases. Therefore, they have been heard together. Some of the Writ Petitions also involve a different issue and therefore, those issues are being dealt with separately. But as I mentioned above, there are certain issues which are common and all of them involve issues which emanate from a notification issued by the Public Service Commission for selection to the post of Surveyor Grade-II in the Department of Survey and Land Records. I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.29794/2006 as also the facts in Writ Petition No. 33742/2006 in the first instance. 2. Ext. P1 notification was issued by the PSC inviting applications for the post of Surveyor Grade-II. Qualifications prescribed for the said post are those contained in Special Rules namely Kerala State Subordinate Services Special Rules in the Kerala Survey and Land Records (hereinafter referred to as Special Rules). The presented qualifications are as follows: (I). A pass in S.S.L.C examination or possession of any of the other equivalent qualification specified in the Schedule to Part II of the General Rules. (II). Must possess-- (i). I.T.I. (Surveyor Trade) Certificate introduced with effect from the year 1966. OR (ii). The I.T.I (Surveyor Trade) Certificate issued prior to the year 1966 and satisfactorily completed six months inplant training according to the rules approved by the Board of Revenue in this regard; OR (iii). A pass in Surveying and Levelling (Higher) M.G.T.E or K.G.T.E with Chain Survey Test; OR (iv). Experience in Military service for a period of six years in Surveyor trade: provided that in the absence of candidates with the technical qualifications mentioned above, a pass in Higher Survey Test shall be deemed sufficient: provided further that in the absence of candidates with any of the technical qualifications mentioned above, a pass in Chain Survey Test shall be deemed sufficient." 3. PSC conducted a written test for the selection to the post on 13.10.2006. According to the petitioners, persons who did not possess the prescribed qualification but who possessed Diploma or even a Degree in Civil Engineering had applied for the same. They were also permitted to take part in the test. PSC conducted a written test for the selection to the post on 13.10.2006. According to the petitioners, persons who did not possess the prescribed qualification but who possessed Diploma or even a Degree in Civil Engineering had applied for the same. They were also permitted to take part in the test. On enquiry, it was understood that the Commission took the view that the Diploma holders and Degree holders in Civil Engineering are also eligible to apply for the post, and this is the view the Commission took, apparently on the basis of R.10(a)(ii) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. It is contended that the prescribed qualification is a certificate in Survey Trade or a pass in Surveying and Levelling (higher), MGTE or KGTE with Chain Survey test. Syllabus for the Trade of Surveyor under Craftsmen Training scheme is produced as Ext. P4 and the Syllabus for Diploma course in Civil Engineering in so far as it relates to the discipline of Surveying is produced as Ext. P5. A copy of the syllabus for B.Tech in Civil Engineering regarding the discipline of Surveying is produced as Ext. P6. Petitioners contend that the Syllabi, Exts.P4 to P6, have no commonality as such. I may straight away refer to a similar contention raised in Writ Petition No. 33742/2006 wherein the petitioners have produced Exts. P15, P16 and P17 along with IA 10161/2008 being the syllabus for a Diploma or a Degree in Civil Engineering. Specific contention taken up in Writ Petition No.33742/2006 in this regard is encapsulated in ground B of the said Writ Petition which is extracted herein: "It is pertinent to note that the degree holders/diploma holders in Civil Engineering have only passed in SSLC. But they do not have anyone of the Certificates enumerated in Ext. P1 under cl. (ii) of under the title of "Eligibility". That is to say, the degree holders/diploma holders who are now permitted to take part in the examination do not have ITI Survey Trade Certificate or KGTE in Survey, Chain Survey Test or MGTE of six years Military experience in Survey Trade. These qualifications specified in the notification are practice oriented and are totally distinct. Neither a degree holder in Civil Engineering nor a diploma holder will have any practical experience in these areas. A student who undergoes the ITI and ITC course undergo a total practical training in these courses. These qualifications specified in the notification are practice oriented and are totally distinct. Neither a degree holder in Civil Engineering nor a diploma holder will have any practical experience in these areas. A student who undergoes the ITI and ITC course undergo a total practical training in these courses. They study the subject by practicing it in the field and on the earth. At the same time such a methodology is not adopted in the B.Tech or diploma course. The practical hours of study spend by ITI certificate holder in Surveying would be 4242 hours where as that availed by a degree/diploma holders in surveying is less than 413 hours. This shows that fundamental and apparent difference between the two courses. Therefore it is absolutely wrong to say that a degree or diploma in Civil Engineering is a higher qualification to a Certificate course in Survey Trade granted by the ITI or ITC. As such the very stand of the PSC that degree or diploma holders are eligible to be considered because they hold the higher qualification is patently erroneous." 4. Petitioners therefore, contend that the Public Service Commission committed an illegality in considering those persons who do not possess the prescribed qualification but only possessed Diploma or Degree in Civil Engineering, along with the persons like the petitioners who possessed the prescribed qualification in the selection. Essential relief sought for in Writ Petition Nos.29794/2006, 33742/2006, 31637/2006, 30729/2006, 26271/2006, 26568/2006, & 29998/2006 is that the PSC should prepare a rank list by excluding those persons who possessed Diploma or Degree in Civil Engineering. 5. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.30729/2006 have an additional contention namely that the test has not been conducted properly. According to them, 31 out of 100 questions forming part of the question paper in the objective format seem to be a verbatim reproduction of Ext. P13, which is a guide published by a publishing house, of which the fourth respondent is the Chief Editor. Fourth respondent is also one of the applicants for the post. They, therefore, contend that the similarity in the lay out and the content of 31 questions out of 100, cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence but as an indication of factors which vitiate the selection as such. In effect, the prayer therefore, is to set aside the entire selection and direct the PSC to conduct fresh selection in accordance with law. In effect, the prayer therefore, is to set aside the entire selection and direct the PSC to conduct fresh selection in accordance with law. 6. I will deal with these two contentions in the first instance. As I have mentioned earlier, some of the Writ Petitions involve a different question and therefore, it would be advantageous to consider those Writ Petitions separately. 7. PSC has filed a counter affidavit essentially contending that the prescribed qualification for the post in question is a certificate in Surveyor Trade. It cannot be again said that the qualification of a Diploma or a Degree in Civil Engineering would equip a diplomat or a Degree holder in acquiring requisite knowledge in Chain Survey as is acquired by a person who is a certificate holder in Chain Survey. In fact the level of knowledge required from a diplomat or a degree holder in the concerned trade would be much higher. In such circumstances, Commission is justified in recognizing a 'Diploma or a Degree in Civil Engineering as a higher qualification which presupposes the holder as possessing lower qualification of a trade certificate, which happens to be the prescribed qualification, in terms of R.10(a)(ii) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. The Commission refers to the judgment in Jyoti K.K. and Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others, JT 2002 Suppl.(1) SC 85 in support of their contention. 8. In so far as the challenge against the test is concerned, it is contended that the fact that the fourth respondent happens to be the Chief Editor of a publishing house which publishes guides and other related publications is of no consequence as such. The further fact that 31 out of 100 questions happens to be contained in a guide published by the fourth respondent's publishing house, does not by itself indicate any vitiating factor in so far as the selection is concerned. It is nothing but a coincidence. But on complaints received as to the nature of certain questions, the Commission referred the issue to an expert and the answer thereafter is stated in paras. It is nothing but a coincidence. But on complaints received as to the nature of certain questions, the Commission referred the issue to an expert and the answer thereafter is stated in paras. 9,10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the Commission in Writ Petition No.30729/2006 and the same is extracted herein: "It is respectfully submitted that the expert assigned by the Commission, after verification of the question paper and the syllabus, suggested that 17 questions were not according to the prescribed syllabus for the said post. Those 17 questions were either by Diploma (Civil) or NTC (Civil) level. Even though Surveying and Levelling are also the major portion of the topics in NTC (Civil)/D'man (Civil)/Diploma (Civil) the Service Commission decided to delete the above said 17 questions from the question paper before valuation. It was also recommended that 3 other questions have also to be deleted for having defective answers. Thus, in all, the Commission have decided to delete 20 questions (17 + 3) from the question paper for the post of IInd Grade Surveyor. The 17 questions deleted for having been out of syllabus are question Nos. 6, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 42, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 60, 90 and 97 in Alpha Code "C" question paper. The 3 other questions deleted for proving defective answers are question Nos. 64, 68 and 88 in Alpha Code 'C' Question Paper. It is respectfully submitted that moreover the answer key of 4 other questions 23, 82, 86 and 89 of Alpha Code 'C' Question Paper have been changed as per the Expert's opinion. The details of revised answer key are as follows: Sl. No Qn. No. Alpha Code "C" Qn. Paper Previous Answer Connected Answer as per experts opinion 1 23 C B 2 82 A C 3 86 A D 4 89 D C It is respectfully submitted that the contention of the petitioner in this WP that 31 questions were verbatim reproduction of questions for the Rank File of private firm, namely Technical Publishers, Distributors, has been examined in detail by the Service Commission and found that the similarity, if any, is just a coincidence so far as questions based on a technical qualification are concerned. The Service Commission have, therefore, decided to go on with the selection process after deleting 20 questions and modifying the answer to 4 questions. The Service Commission have, therefore, decided to go on with the selection process after deleting 20 questions and modifying the answer to 4 questions. In view of these aspects, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order granted in this WP and to dismiss the WPs." 9. It is contended that the conduct of the test therefore, does not suffer from any illegality. Reference in this regard is made to the limited scope of judicial review available in matters involving conduct of public examinations, as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, 1984 KHC 138 : 1984 (4) SCC 27 : 1984 KLT SN 55 (C. No.94) (SC) : AIR 1984 SC 1827 : 1984 (86) Bom LR 428, President Board of Secondary Education v. Suvankar, 2006 KHC 1601 : 2007 (1) SCC 603 : 2007 (1) KLT SN 8 (C. No.12) (SC) : JT 2006 (10) SC 103, and State of Kerala v. Fathima Seethi, 2002 KHC 892 : 2002 (3) KLT 871 : ILR 2002 (3) Ker. 165 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18896/2005 and connected cases. 10. I heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in two Writ Petitions. Mr. T. P. Kelu Nambiar, Mr. Jaju Babu, Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, Mr. George Abraham, Mr. Naveen I, and the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr. Nandakumar and the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC Mr. Alexander Thomas. 11. It would be appropriate to consider the second aspect raised in the Writ petition No. 30729/2006 namely whether the selection as such should be treated as vitiated, in the first instance. 12. The allegation of the petitioner, seems to be centered around two factors, firstly that the fourth respondent happens to be the Chief Editor of a publishing house which has published Ext. P13 guide. He has also gone out of his way to assure success to the persons who deem it fit to follow the course of instructions laid down in the publications made from his publishing house. Obviously these cannot be treated as frivolous in the context of the fact that 31 questions in the question paper also happen to find a place in Ext. P13 guide published by him. Obviously these cannot be treated as frivolous in the context of the fact that 31 questions in the question paper also happen to find a place in Ext. P13 guide published by him. Counsel for the petitioners particularly emphasized on what he calls as a significant fact that the said 31 questions seem to be bodily lifted from the guide published from the fourth respondent. They are similar in content, they are similar in lay out, in fact they are identical in every respect. It is contended that these cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence but points to a deep malaise which apparently afflicts the entire selection process. The second aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is that coupled along with the above, since the Commission itself has decided to eschew 20 questions as such from consideration (for the reasons which are mentioned in paras. 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit), it is only appropriate that the selection be reconsidered. 13. The limited scope of judicial review that is available to cases involving allegations of an improper conduct of examination by a public body has been dealt with by the Supreme Court, in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, 1984 KHC 138 : AIR 1984 SC 1827 : 1984 KLT SN 55 (C. No. 94) (SC) : 1984 (86) Bom LR 428. It was again followed in President Board of Secondary Education v. Suvankar, 2006 KHC 1601 : 2007 (1) SCC 603 : 2007 (1) KLT SN 8 (C. No. 12) (SC) : JT 2006 (10) SC 103 in Secretary West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and Others, 2007 KHC 4011 : 2007 (4) KLT 535 (SC) : 2007 (8) SCC 242 : AIR 2007 SC 3098 : JT 2007 (12) SC 130. The ratio decidendi in the aforementioned decisions, essentially point out to the principle that there cannot be a pedantic application of the principles of natural justice as is normally done in the case of disputes involving administrative law to the conduct of examinations by the public bodies. There are large number of candidates who respond to such notifications. The preparation of the question paper will have to be shrouded in secrecy. The body will have to ensure that there is no leakage of the question papers. There are large number of candidates who respond to such notifications. The preparation of the question paper will have to be shrouded in secrecy. The body will have to ensure that there is no leakage of the question papers. Where examination is conducted in the objective format, it is possible that a different set of examiners may have a different opinion as regards the answers for some of the questions. But obviously this cannot be treated as a factor that vitiates the entire selection as such. It is better to respect the wisdom of the body which conducts the selection and judicial review in these matters will have to be confined to cases where there are clear allegations of mala fides or arbitrariness or some like factor which vitiates the exercise of power by any public body. 14. Going by the parameters which are outlined above, can it be said that the conduct of the examination itself stands vitiated? What exactly is the allegation raised by the petitioners? They contend that 31 out of 100 questions, contained in the objective format, are also seen in a publication which will have to be sourced to a publishing house associated with the fourth respondent. In my opinion, one will have to take into account the fact that the test is conducted in a discipline or subject among the applicants whose knowledge in the Craft would be rather peripheral, elementary and basic. 15. I have also gone through the 31 questions which are pointed out by the petitioner as alleged to be bodily lifted from the guide published by the fourth respondent's publishing house. The questions will have to be treated as one which requires knowledge at a fairly elementary level, in the discipline concerned and capable of being answered pointedly. Such questions may be found in several publications of similar nature. The body, which must have prepared the question papers, would also have been required to formulate questions which test the knowledge of the applicant at not more than a peripheral or basic level. In my view, a bank of questions would also have been available to them. There is nothing wrong in going by the format of questions that were included in the question papers for the previous tests. In my view, a bank of questions would also have been available to them. There is nothing wrong in going by the format of questions that were included in the question papers for the previous tests. It obviously would not be possible for an examiner like PSC to insist that questions which are asked in any particular test should not have been asked in any previous test conducted by the same body. The similarity in the lay out of the questions or in the manner in which they are formatted, would, in my opinion, also be indicative of the limited material that is available with the body which must have set the question paper, at the instance of the PSC. 16. The petitioners' allegation that there is something more than a mere coincidence might have merited a deeper scrutiny provided there were allegations of any mala fide exercise of power by the persons who are in control of the affairs in PSC. There are no such allegations. In my view, even if the relevant averments in this regard are scrutinised deeply, they only indicate that there are several publishing houses which apparently try to cash in on the desire of a large multitude of unemployed people to gain an employment in public services and consequently to equip themselves for a test conducted by the PSC. Attitude is not dissimilar to thousands of students who aspire for an admission in professional colleges and therefore, subject themselves to a gruelling schedule for equipping themselves to participate in such competitive examinations. It is quite possible that the gullible among the applicants would be taken for a ride by the unscrupulous among the publishing houses. But, ultimately the system will have to fend for itself in those matters. I do not think it is a matter which merits a judicial review in the absence of clear and clinching material to indicate mala fide involvement by the persons who are in a position to control the affairs of the PSC. Prayer for cancellation of the written test as such is therefore, rejected. 17. I also mention in this context that though the petitioners in Writ Petition No.29998/2006 had also made a similar prayer, Mr. George Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner, has expressly given up the same. 18. Prayer for cancellation of the written test as such is therefore, rejected. 17. I also mention in this context that though the petitioners in Writ Petition No.29998/2006 had also made a similar prayer, Mr. George Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner, has expressly given up the same. 18. This brings me to the second aspect as to whether the persons with Degree or a Diploma in Civil Engineering were entitled to participate in the test as such. I have already adverted to the contentions of either side. Learned Standing Counsel for the PSC relies on the judgment in Jyothi to contend that a Degree or a Diploma in Civil Engineering should be treated as a higher qualification, which necessarily presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification namely the prescribed qualification of a certificate in Survey Trade. One factor which was specifically considered by the Supreme Court in Jyoti, upholding the contention of a similar nature therein, was that the Degree in Electrical Engineering is identified as a qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, which is vertically above the post of Sub Engineer in the Electricity Board. The technical qualification prescribed for the post of Sub Engineer was a Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized institute or a certificate in Electrical Engineering from anyone of the recognized technical institutes, along with five years experience. Apparently, some of the applicants for the said post were holders of B.Tech. Degree in Electrical Engineering or Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering. Supreme Court considered it significant that a Degree in Electrical Engineering was treated as the prescribed qualification for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer as per the Special Rules in question. The post of Assistant Executive Engineer is the promotion post to that of Sub Engineer and in these circumstances, Supreme Court held that the qualification that has to be possessed by a direct recruit to a higher post could be treated as the higher qualification to what is prescribed for the lower post. It was held that "in that view of the matter, the qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of Diploma in that subject prescribed for the post". It was held that "in that view of the matter, the qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of Diploma in that subject prescribed for the post". What was considered by the Supreme Court was the Special Rules, which provided for a vertical hierarchy amongst the post of Sub Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer (and others) and the degree as a prescribed qualification for the promotion post, "in the same line of promotion". The situation would probably be different in the present case. A perusal of the Special Rules would show that a Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering is not treated as a qualification even as an alternate qualification for anyone of the posts in the hierarchy of the posts comprehended by the same set of Rules. It is not the qualification for the post of Surveyor Grade-I or a Head Surveyor and it is not even a qualification for the post of Superintendent which is a promotion post, but covered by Special Rules for the State Service. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the principle in Jyoti as such would not apply to the facts of the present case. 19. I also consider it significant that the Government has taken a specific stand in the present case that the qualification of Degree/Diploma cannot be considered as a prescribed qualification or an equivalent qualification for the post in question. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed by the Government reads as follows: "Since the application for selection was invited by the KPSC based on the Special Rules, the KPSC should have allowed only the candidates who fulfilled the prescribed qualification to appear for the test. So far all the appointments of Survey or Grade-II made by the Department were strictly under the provisions of Special Rules. Allowing candidates who do not possess the prescribed qualification as per the KPSC notification to appear for the test is violation of the Special Rules. It is submitted that if the selection of Surveyors to the department is not according to the qualifications prescribed in the Special Rules, it will cause several difficulties in the administration of the Survey and Land Records Department. Moreover, rules governing the recruitment and other related procedures are framed after due process and these rules are to be followed by all concerned." 20. Moreover, rules governing the recruitment and other related procedures are framed after due process and these rules are to be followed by all concerned." 20. The view expressed by the appointing authority obviously is a matter of significance. 21. Some of the relevant aspects to decide whether a qualification could be treated as higher qualification, the acquisition of which presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification, in the context of R.10(a)(ii) of the General Rules, could be derived by referring to certain other parameters also. Apart from the factor that was laid down by the Supreme Court in Jyoti's case, one other factor that could be taken note of by the PSC is the course content in the syllabi for the courses under comparison. Obviously, this exercise would be subjective to a certain extent. Nevertheless it would be reasonable to consider a Diploma or a Degree in the same faculty as one constituted in a vertical hierarchy. A comparison of the syllabi in such cases would normally be an exercise to find out whether a Degree could be treated as a natural progression of a Diploma. If the answer is in the affirmative, the Commission could legitimately treat the Degree as a higher qualification for the purpose in question. 22. Discipline of Survey Trade is only one aspect which forms part of the syllabus for a Diploma or a Degree in Civil Engineering. The emphasis would not be similar. Petitioners have taken the burden of producing the syllabus for ITI Trade certificate and that of a Diploma/ Degree in Civil Engineering. Petitioners have produced materials to show that the courses are different and the syllabus for one cannot be considered as comprehensive of the syllabus of the other. PSC has not produced any materials to indicate the contra. In my view, PSC has erred in going by the dictum laid down in Jyoti. 23. Mr. Alexander Thomas brings to my notice the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.33878/2004 which was concerned with the selection to the post of Draftsman involving similar qualifications. Though a contention of the present nature was urged therein, it was not considered on merits by the learned Judge for the reasons which are contained in para. 4 of the judgment. Though a contention of the present nature was urged therein, it was not considered on merits by the learned Judge for the reasons which are contained in para. 4 of the judgment. But, the petitioner tried to canvass that the syllabus of ITI Surveyor trade and the syllabus of Survey in Degree and Diploma courses are not equivalent and therefore, Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering should not be treated as a higher qualification, which pre supposes the acquisition of ITI Surveyor trade. Reference was made to some of the observations in the counter affidavit, filed by the Director of Survey and Land Records. But, there are no pleadings or materials in the Writ Petition, concerning this point. Further, the Public Service Commission has decided to accept the Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering as a higher qualification, which pre supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of ITI Surveyor trade. Normally, such decisions of expert bodies like the Public Service Commission should be respected. The petitioner has failed to produce any materials for dislodging the presumption in favour of the validity of the decision of the Public Service Commission. The petitioner has not amended the Writ Petition, incorporating any pleading in this regard. In view of the said position, this Court is not justified in interfering with the decision of the Public Service Commission that Degree/ Diploma holders in Civil Engineering are also eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Draftsman Grade-II in the Survey and Land Records Department. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. (emphasis supplied) 24. He also brings to my notice another judgment of the same learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 17496/2007 concerning the same notification. Though a contention that a Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering should be treated as equivalent to the ITI Trade certificate in Survey was urged there, it seems that the said contention was not considered on merits as such. In fact, the learned Judge held that the point is covered by the judgment in Writ Petition No.33878/2004. The main aspect considered in Writ Petition No. 17496/2007 was whether persons possessing an alternate qualification should necessarily have been called for the examination. It is further submitted that the judgment in Writ Petition No. 17496/2007 is pending in Writ Appeal No.2250/2007. 25. The main aspect considered in Writ Petition No. 17496/2007 was whether persons possessing an alternate qualification should necessarily have been called for the examination. It is further submitted that the judgment in Writ Petition No. 17496/2007 is pending in Writ Appeal No.2250/2007. 25. For all these reasons, I am of the view, that the Public Service Commission had committed an error in permitting persons with a Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering to participate in the written test conducted as part of the selection to the post of Surveyor Grade-II pursuant to Ext. P1 notification. They are not qualified for the post in question and therefore, such persons are liable to be eschewed from consideration. I find that notice by paper publication has been taken in some of the cases. But there has been no appearance by any person, to defend his inclusion in the list. 26. As I mentioned at the outset, there are certain cases, which involve a different issue. Those are Writ Petition Nos.26407/2006, 26166/2007, 29451/2006, 27443/2006, 27423/2006, 26867/2006, 26377/2006 and 26507/2006. According to the petitioners therein, they hold the last alternate qualification as prescribed in the notification (pass in Chain Survey test) and therefore, they should necessarily have been permitted to participate in the written test. They refer to Rr.4 and 12A of the PSC Rules of Procedure in that regard. 27. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. P. K. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Sajan Varghese K., Mr. M. V. Thamban, Mr. Siby Mathew, Mr. R. K. Muraleedharan, and Mr. Maniprasad, the learned Government Pleader Mr. Nandakumar and the learned Standing Counsel Mr. Alexander Thomas for the PSC. 28. PSC has filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit. It is pointed out that there were 9404 applicants for the post and out of them 3666 candidates, including 29 candidates possessing Chain Survey certificate, were provisionally admitted for the written test held on 13.10.2006. The petitioners in these cases will be considered only if there are no candidates who are qualified in terms of the main part of the notification. There were sufficient candidates who possessed the prescribed qualifications and therefore, there was no necessity to call the persons who, at any rate, will be considered only in the absence of other qualified candidates, for the test. Reference was made to a judgment of this Court in WP (C). There were sufficient candidates who possessed the prescribed qualifications and therefore, there was no necessity to call the persons who, at any rate, will be considered only in the absence of other qualified candidates, for the test. Reference was made to a judgment of this Court in WP (C). 19998/2003 and also a decision made by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No. 1508/2003. It is admitted that the petitioners could be treated as qualified only in terms of the proviso to the rule which prescribes the qualification. It is clear from the prescription of the qualification that they can be considered only in the absence of other qualifying candidates. In my view, neither R.4 nor 12A obliges the Commission to call the persons who possess only the last alternate qualification, for the test conducted by them. The key words, according to me, are in the absence of "qualifying candidates". This would obviously mean qualified in terms of the main part of the Rule. Thus, a person who has passed SSLC with the Chain Survey test could be considered for the post of Surveyor Grade-II only if there are no qualified candidates, namely the candidates who possess either ITI Surveyor Trade Certificate or the other certificates mentioned therein. PSC's stand in the first counter affidavit filed by them is that the petitioners herein may not be considered because there were sufficient number of candidates who possessed the original qualification and also candidates with Degree and Diploma. No doubt, as I have held earlier, a Degree or a Diploma cannot be considered as a qualification in terms of the notification, but going by the number of persons who had actually participated in the test namely 3666 (including holders of Degree and Diploma) and the number of vacancies notified namely 295, it cannot be said that the PSC had acted improperly or unwisely. In my view, the right of the petitioners herein being a right to be considered only in the absence of persons PSC had not invited them for the test. As has been discussed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 19998/2003, it would be a waste of public money and a wasteful exercise to subject persons having lower qualifications to a test as a routine measure, in every case, regardless of the fact that there are large number of candidates available with the primarily prescribed qualification. As has been discussed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 19998/2003, it would be a waste of public money and a wasteful exercise to subject persons having lower qualifications to a test as a routine measure, in every case, regardless of the fact that there are large number of candidates available with the primarily prescribed qualification. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 26166/2006 Mr. R. K. Muraleedharan submits that if after excluding Degree and Diploma holders from consideration, PSC finds that there are inadequate number of persons who possessed the primary qualifications, the Commission may consider the question of preparing a separate list for the persons with the qualification prescribed in the note. In my view, this is better left to the Public Service Commission. Some of the persons who had approached this Court were permitted to participate in the test on a provisional basis. If the PSC after completing the exercise, as directed above, by excluding candidates with Degree and Diploma from consideration, finds that there are inadequate number of persons who possess the primary qualification, then they may prepare a list of those persons with the last alternate qualification, provided such persons had participated in the test and were successful therein as well. This is a matter which is left to the PSC. No other point has been urged. 30. In the result, Writ Petition Nos. 29794/2006, 31637/2006, 33742/2006, 26271/2007, 29998/2006 and 26568/2006 are allowed in part. It is declared that the candidates with Degree or Diploma who had participated in the written test conducted by the PSC for the post of Surveyor Grade-II were not qualified for the said post and therefore, their participation must be treated as null and void. The said persons shall be excluded from consideration and the PSC may proceed further with the selection process excluding such ineligible persons. The challenge against the conduct of the examination as such as mounted in Writ Petition No. 30729/2006 is repelled. 31. The contentions raised by the petitioners in other cases, who only hold the last alternate qualification for the post in question (namely pass in Chain Survey Test) are also repelled. 32. The challenge against the conduct of the examination as such as mounted in Writ Petition No. 30729/2006 is repelled. 31. The contentions raised by the petitioners in other cases, who only hold the last alternate qualification for the post in question (namely pass in Chain Survey Test) are also repelled. 32. WP (C)s. 26407/06, 29451/06, 26166/06, 27443/06, 27423/06, 26867/06, 26377/ 06 and 26507/06 are dismissed, subject to the liberty granted to the PSC, as mentioned above, to prepare a separate list for such persons, provided they deem it appropriate in that behalf.