JUDGMENT : P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. 1. Can the Degree given by the Calicut University in Malayalam and Sociology (Double Main) be taken as the requisite/notified qualification of 'Degree in Sociology' for appointment to the post of Social Education Organiser in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration? If so, how the percentage of marks is to be reckoned for assessing the level of candidates concerned? In other words, in the case of latter, (i.e. candidates having Double Main), can the marks obtained in the subject 'Sociology' be segregated and the percentage could be worked out comparing the same with the percentage of marks obtained by the former, (i.e. candidates having Degree in Sociology) reckoning the marks in the Main Subject and also the Subsidiaries (which forms the total marks obtained in the Degree)? Probe in this regard is necessitated in view of the challenge raised against the appointment given to the petitioner (4th respondent in the O.A.), which was accepted and the appointment was set aside by the Tribunal, which in turn is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. As to the sequence of events, it is to be noted that a post of Social Education Organiser in the Lakshadweep Administration was notified to be filled up by issuing Annexure A1 notification dated 22.02.2011 by the third respondent. The qualification prescribed was a 'Bachelor Degree in Sociology' from any Lakshadweep recognised University, also showing the desirable qualification as BSW/MSW from a recognised University. Age requirement was between 18 years and 25 years as on the last date for submitting the applications. 3. On coming across the above notification, both the applicant and the petitioner herein applied for the post. The applicant was having a Degree in Sociology issued by the University of Calicut, with a total of 54.63 % of marks (437 marks out of total of 800). The petitioner herein was also having a Degree issued from the very same University, but it was with 'Double Main' i.e., Malayalam and Sociology, with a total of 226 marks out of total of 400 (56.50 %). After considering the application, a check list was published by the Administration and on considering the marks obtained by the petitioner in the main subject Sociology, it was found that she had secured 226 out of 400 thus showing the extent as 48.03%. After considering the application, a check list was published by the Administration and on considering the marks obtained by the petitioner in the main subject Sociology, it was found that she had secured 226 out of 400 thus showing the extent as 48.03%. In the case of the applicant, as mentioned above, the total for the subject Sociology Degree was 437 out of 800 (which in fact was also inclusive of the marks for the Subsidiaries) and her extent of marks was worked out as 54.63%. As a matter of fact, as per the relevant rules, 85% of the marks for the academic qualification was to be reckoned for selection and the remaining 15% was for possessing the desirable qualification. On taking 85% of marks so secured by the applicant and also the petitioner herein, it was found that the petitioner herein was occupying a higher level. Accordingly, selection proceedings were finalised issuing Annexure A5 (wherein the petitioner was placed at Rank No. 1 and the 4th respondent /applicant was shown at Rank No. 2). It was accordingly that appointment was given to the petitioner, which made the applicant feel aggrieved. The applicant contended that the petitioner was not-qualified and that her qualification (Degree in Malayalam and Sociology) was never certified as equivalent by the University, by virtue of which the Administration ought not to have appointed her under any circumstance and should have appointed the applicant, who was qualified in all respects. It was accordingly, that O.A. No. 666 of 2013 was filed before the Tribunal seeking for immediate interference. 4. The petitioner herein/4th respondent in the O.A. sought to justify her selection by filing Ext.P2 reply statement also producing copies of the Degree Certificate and Mark list as Annexure R4(a) and (b). It was asserted by her that, by virtue of the very nature of the Course and Degree offered by the University of Calicut, she was having a Degree with 'Double Main' (Malayalam and Sociology) and that she was qualified in all respects to be appointed to the post in question, where Degree in Sociology was stipulated as the basic qualification. It was also pointed out that, having obtained 226 marks out of 400 for Main I-Sociology, she was having a higher percentage of marks than the applicant and hence there was nothing wrong in having selected and appointed her. It was also pointed out that, having obtained 226 marks out of 400 for Main I-Sociology, she was having a higher percentage of marks than the applicant and hence there was nothing wrong in having selected and appointed her. The Lakshadweep Administration also sought to justify their stand and selection, by filing a reply statement, also producing various documents as Annexures R1 (a) to R1(f). It was also asserted that the marks secured in the qualifying examination was the guiding factor governing the situation. The Degree of the petitioner (Double Main) with the subjects 'Sociology and Malayalam' was sufficient enough to have accepted the candidature of the petitioner and with reference to the marks obtained for the subject Sociology, the petitioner was rated above the applicant. It was also stated that the Administration had written to the University to clarify the equivalence of Double Main-(Sociology and Malayalam) and Single Main Sociology Degree awarded by the University for employment under the Union Territory of Lakshadweep as per Annexure R1(c) letter dated 13.08.2013. Reference was also made to the reply given by the University on 04.09.2013 vide Annexure R1(d), which was to the effect that the question of equivalence had never been considered by the Academic Board of the University. Still, the Degree in 'Double Main' pattern was reckoned by the Administration as adequate enough for the post in question, wherein 'Degree in Sociology' was stipulated as the basic qualification. It was accordingly, that the petitioner was selected and ranked above the applicant based on the higher percentage of marks obtained in one of the 'Double Main' subjects Sociology. 5. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal observed that only on obtaining the qualifying marks in all the subjects, will it lead to award of the Degree, which included Malayalam and Sociology in the case of the 4th respondent in the O.A. (petitioner herein) and that marks in Sociology alone will not lead to award the Bachelors Degree. It was held as necessary to take the composite marks obtained in all the subjects, which had caused the award of Bachelors Degree to the 4th respondent. This, in the case of the 4th respondent, was 426 out of 800, whereas the marks for the Degree awarded to the applicant was 437 out of 800. It was held as necessary to take the composite marks obtained in all the subjects, which had caused the award of Bachelors Degree to the 4th respondent. This, in the case of the 4th respondent, was 426 out of 800, whereas the marks for the Degree awarded to the applicant was 437 out of 800. Since the percentage of marks obtained by the applicant was higher than the percentage of marks obtained by the 4th respondent in the Degree, it was held that the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent in the O.A. was bad in all respects, which in turn was set aside as per Ext.P4 order, directing the Administration to appoint the applicant to the post of Social Education Organiser. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order has moved this Court by way of the present Original Petition. 6. The matter was heard elaborately. Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with reference to the materials already on record and also the additional documents produced before this Court along with the concerned I.As, that there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner has secured more marks in the subject Sociology, than the marks obtained by the applicant in the said subject. The marks obtained by the petitioner in the other main subject, i.e., Malayalam (being Double Main pattern) is having no relevance or significance, particularly when the post in question is to be filled up by a candidate having 'Degree in Sociology'. The learned counsel submitted that similar practice was being followed by the Administration throughout, as discernible from Ext.P7 (produced along with I.A. No. 719 of 2016), which is a copy of the rank list for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi) published by the Lakshadweep Administration, wherein candidates having roll Nos. 5210 and 5226 were holding Degree with 'Double Main' subjects. The norm reckoned in their case was only with reference to the marks obtained by them for the main subject- Hindi, leaving out the marks obtained for the other main subject. This being the position, there was consistency and clarity in the selection, which ought not to have been interfered by the Tribunal by passing Ext.P4. The norm reckoned in their case was only with reference to the marks obtained by them for the main subject- Hindi, leaving out the marks obtained for the other main subject. This being the position, there was consistency and clarity in the selection, which ought not to have been interfered by the Tribunal by passing Ext.P4. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the Degree obtained by the petitioner (with Double Main) has now been certified by the University of Calicut as equivalent to Degree in Sociology awarded by the University, vide Ext.P8. 7. Mr. M.R. Hariraj, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent (applicant in the O.A.) submitted that the qualification notified was 'Degree in Sociology' and nothing else. Since no equivalent qualification was mentioned in Annexure A1 notification, the qualification of the petitioner was never liable to be considered under any circumstance; more so when it was never certified as equivalent by the University at the time of selection and appointment, as discernible from Annexures R1(c) and (d). It was only during the pendency of the present Original Petition, that equivalence was certified by the University, which cannot result in any adverse consequence to the applicant. The learned counsel further submitted that since the percentage of marks obtained in the academic qualification is the deciding factor and since the qualification is 'Degree in Sociology' no segregation could have been effected with reference to a particular subject, to have rated the petitioner above the applicant and that the total marks obtained for the Degree (qualifying examination) was liable to be reckoned, as correctly done by the Tribunal. As such, the order passed by the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered. 8. Shri S. Radhakrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration submitted that, no norms had been stipulated by the University, as to how percentage of marks in a Degree with 'Double Main' pattern is to be fixed or reckoned. Since two separate main subjects were there, the Administration as per the practice followed, reckoned the marks obtained in the particular main subject to assess the merit. The proceedings pursued by the Administration were clear and transparent and that no instance of any arbitrariness or mala-fides is established, submits the learned Standing Counsel. 9. Since two separate main subjects were there, the Administration as per the practice followed, reckoned the marks obtained in the particular main subject to assess the merit. The proceedings pursued by the Administration were clear and transparent and that no instance of any arbitrariness or mala-fides is established, submits the learned Standing Counsel. 9. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the basic qualification notified for the post, i.e., a Degree in Sociology. It is true that no equivalent qualification was mentioned in Annexure A1 notification. But the question is whether the petitioner can be treated as a person having a Degree in Sociology or can be denied to be reckoned so, merely for the reason that her Degree was also in respect of one more main subject, i.e., Malayalam, along with Sociology (Double Main pattern). In so far as the Degree is of 'Double Main' pattern and Sociology was one of the two main subjects, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not having a Degree in Sociology. If such an interpretation is given, it can be equally said that the petitioner is not having a Degree in Malayalam. The net effect will be that the petitioner would not be considered for a post where either a Degree in Sociology is specified as the basic qualification or in respect of a post where Degree in Malayalam is stipulated as the qualification; thus making her Degree of no use. On bringing out the anomalous situation to the University, the authorities of the Academic Bodies have considered the issue, at least during the pendency of the O.P and have issued Ext.P8 to the effect that the Degree awarded by the University to the petitioner with 'Double Main' in Malayalam and Sociology is equivalent to the Degree in Sociology awarded by the very same University. Since this declaration dates back to the date of awarding the Degree, it can definitely be said that the petitioner was also qualified to be considered for the post in question and that there is nothing wrong in it. 10. Now comes to the question as to the comparative merits and who is to be rated above the other. Since this declaration dates back to the date of awarding the Degree, it can definitely be said that the petitioner was also qualified to be considered for the post in question and that there is nothing wrong in it. 10. Now comes to the question as to the comparative merits and who is to be rated above the other. It is to be noted that the petitioner, as disclosed from Annexure R4(b), had appeared for papers (I) to (IV) of Part III Main I Malayalam having maximum marks of 100 each(total 400) and had obtained 200 marks. Coming to the other main subject, i.e., Sociology, she had appeared for papers (1) to (IV), which however carried only a total of 80 Marks each. But, in respect of Works Papers/Internal Assessment for papers (I) to (IV), a further extent of 80 was stipulated, thus taking the total to 400, out of which the petitioner could get 226'. Thus, the grand total for the Degree, she obtained 426 ' out of 800. In the case of the applicant, she had appeared for Part III Sociology Main, for six different papers having a total of 100 marks each and obtained 331 marks out of 600. In respect of two 'Subsidiary subjects' of 100 marks each, the applicant obtained 106 out of 200, thus obtaining a total 437 marks out of 800 for the Degree in Sociology. In other words, the marks obtained in Degree is the total sum of marks obtained in the Main subject and in the 'Subsidiaries' (437 out of 800), which in the case of the petitioner, could only be the total marks obtained in both the Main subjects (having no Subsidiary) (426/800). From the above, it is clear that the applicant was having more marks in the Degree/qualifying examination than the petitioner. 11. The next question is whether any segregation of marks is possible, confining consideration only with reference to the marks obtained for the Main subject Sociology, leaving the marks for the other main subject-Malayalam in the case of the petitioner. Curiously enough, while adopting such a course by the Administration to have selected the petitioner, they did not reckon the marks obtained by the applicant in the Sociology Main (six papers) but considered the marks obtained in the Subsidiary subjects as well. Curiously enough, while adopting such a course by the Administration to have selected the petitioner, they did not reckon the marks obtained by the applicant in the Sociology Main (six papers) but considered the marks obtained in the Subsidiary subjects as well. The two Subsidiary subjects as revealed from Annexure A2 are the papers of Basic Psychological Process (total 100 Marks) and Indian Constitution and Politics (total 100 marks). No explanation is forthcoming as to why the marks in the Subsidiary subjects, which have no connection with Sociology, were also taken in the case of the applicant; whereas in the case of the petitioner, the marks in Sociology Main subject were segregated from the rest, to reckon the eligibility. 12. As mentioned already, the marks obtained in the Degree are the total of marks in all the subjects concerned. When the applicant had to qualify in all the 'six' papers of the Main subject 'Sociology' along with two different Subsidiary subjects, to get the Degree, the total mark in the Main and Subsidiaries (as liable to be counted) is reckoned as the mark awarded by the University for the Degree, i.e., 437 out of 800. No different treatment is possible in respect of a person having Degree in 'Double Main'. Instead of studying the Subsidiary subjects, the petitioner was undergoing the Degree course with two Main subjects and as such, the marks obtained in both the Mains are liable to be counted, which comes to 426 out of 800. This is at a lower level than the marks got by the applicant. 13. The issue can be viewed in another angle as well. Much stress and emphasis is given by the learned counsel for the petitioner and by the learned Standing Counsel for the Administration, to the particular subject in which Degree is required for appointment to the post in question, i.e., Sociology. But then, it is to be noted that the petitioner herein had studied only four papers in the Main subject 'Sociology' which carried a maximum marks of 80 each/- (i.e., for a total of 320 out of 400). In addition to this, 80 marks were provided for the 'Works Books/Internal Assessment' in respect of the above Papers I to IV, thus making it a total of 400. In addition to this, 80 marks were provided for the 'Works Books/Internal Assessment' in respect of the above Papers I to IV, thus making it a total of 400. In the case of the applicant, she apparently had studied much more, by undergoing the course dealing with 'six' papers in the main subject 'Sociology', facing the examinations with maximum marks of 100 for each paper, apart from two Subsidiary subjects, having maximum marks of 100 each. Since the period of study for both the Degree course is the same, the time consumed for imparting the studies in the Main subject Sociology in the case of the applicant was 75% of the total, while 25% was left for the Subsidiary subjects. Marks were also distributed accordingly, i.e., 600 marks for Sociology, while only 200 marks were set forth for the two Subsidiary subjects. 14. Coming to the case of the petitioner, as revealed from Annexure R1(a), out of the total 800 marks, 400 marks were in respect of the Main subject 'Sociology' and 400 marks were in respect of the other Main subject 'Malayalam'. This virtually means, in the entire curriculum, 50% of time had to be devoted to each of the two Main subjects and as such only 50% teaching time could be utilised for studying the other Main subject Sociology. In other words, the quantum of input in relation to the subject 'Sociology' is apparently more in the case of the applicant and it could only be less in the case of the petitioner herein. It is also to be noted that, if it be the petitioner or the applicant, if they had scored 100% in the Main subject 'Sociology' and if they have failed in one paper in the other field, even by one mark, they would not have obtained the Degree, as the Degree could be awarded only subject to passing all the relevant papers and under no other circumstances. This means, the entire marks for the Degree are liable to be reckoned for the purpose of assessment to ascertain the percentage of marks obtained in the Degree. The segregation done by the Lakshadweep Administration, taking only the marks obtained in one of the two Main subjects (Sociology) to have rated the petitioner as the better candidate is not correct or sustainable, which has been rightly intercepted by the Tribunal. The segregation done by the Lakshadweep Administration, taking only the marks obtained in one of the two Main subjects (Sociology) to have rated the petitioner as the better candidate is not correct or sustainable, which has been rightly intercepted by the Tribunal. We find that there is absolutely no tenable ground to call for interference with the verdict passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly interference is declined and the O.P. is dismissed.