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. 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 2015 raising various contentions. Firstly, they contended that the said action would amount to infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and violation of the principles laid down in Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another [ (2008) 3 SCC 512 ], in Mohd. Raisul Islam v. Gokul Mohan Hazarika [ (2010) 7 SCC 560 ] and in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Jagadish Chandra Singh Bora [ (2014) 8 SCC 644 ]. Raisul Islam v. Gokul Mohan Hazarika [ (2010) 7 SCC 560 ] and in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Jagadish Chandra Singh Bora [ (2014) 8 SCC 644 ]. It was also their contention that by resorting to the said basis of marking the official respondents enabled several persons who scored much less marks in the written examination conducted as part of the selection process in question to steal a march over candidates who got more marks, including them. 5. With reference to Annexure-A6 (in Ext.P1) notification dated 30.4.2010 for selection to the posts of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Electronics) and Annexure-A7 ranked list published pursuant thereto as also Annexure-A8 (in Ext.P1) notification dated 15.2.2013 for selection to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Computer Science) (Special Recruitment for ST only) and Annexure-A9 ranked list published pursuant thereto, in Higher Secondary Education Department it was contended that they would reveal the invidious discrimination from the part of the PSC. It is their case that Annexure-A6 is earlier to and Annexure-A8 is subsequent to, the notification in question viz., Annexure-A1 (in Ext.P1) dated 31.12.2010 and the ranked lists issued pursuant to the selections thus made viz., Annexures A7 and A9 would reveal that no credit or weightage was given to the academic performance. The selection in question is also to a post under the very same department viz., Higher Secondary Education Department. It is in the said circumstances that they raised the ground of discrimination. It is submitted that no reason was assigned by the PSC for such differential and discriminatory treatment. It was their further contention that the marks secured by the candidates at the post graduate level ought not to have been taken as the true reflection of their merit as it is common knowledge that different Universities got different parameters and standards for awarding marks. That apart, it was contended that the applicants/respondents 1 to 3 herein had undergone the yearly method for post graduation and therefore, they were in a disadvantageous position when compared to those who had undergone the course under semester system. They challenged Annexure-A5 viz., Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 providing credit for academic marks to a maximum of 30 marks as well besides challenging Annexures-A3 and A4 circulars. 6. They challenged Annexure-A5 viz., Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 providing credit for academic marks to a maximum of 30 marks as well besides challenging Annexures-A3 and A4 circulars. 6. On behalf of the appellant PSC viz., the 3rd respondent therein a reply statement was filed before the Tribunal to resist the aforesaid contentions of respondents 1 to 3 herein viz., the applicants therein. It is stated therein that the basis of marking fixed rather, followed, by the PSC in the selection in question was as follows:- “Marks obtained in the OMR test + credit of academic marks out of 30 (i.e., 30% of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination) + interview marks out of 20 + 10 marks to be given weightage as per Circular No.3/2011.” In paragraph 6 therein it is stated that in respect of recruitment to teaching posts in Higher Secondary Schools and Colleges credit for academic marks is also taken into account to rank the merit of the candidates. In the selection in question 100 marks for OMR Test, 30 marks as credit for academic marks and 20 marks for interview, were allotted. The applicants are challenging the award of 30 marks for academic marks secured in the qualifying degree examination only. It is further stated therein that Rule 11 of KPSC Rules of Procedure makes it the prerogative of the Commission to decide the mode of selection by adhering to the relevant rules issued by the Government. 7. Evidently, the aforementioned rival contentions were considered by the Tribunal. Relying on the decisions in Jagadish Chandra Singh Bora's case, Mohd. Raisul Islam's case and Manjusree's case (supra) the Tribunal held that selection procedure could not be altered once the selection process is commenced. It is further found that the applicants/respondents 1 to 3 had succeeded in demonstrating clearly that academic weightage which was introduced after the commencement of the selection process in question considerably affected their chances of being advised for appointment. It is held that the applicants had also succeeded in showing that candidates who secured lower marks in the written test happened to be included in the ranked list that too, above the applicants only on the strength of the grace marks granted based on the marks scored in the qualifying examination. It is held that the applicants had also succeeded in showing that candidates who secured lower marks in the written test happened to be included in the ranked list that too, above the applicants only on the strength of the grace marks granted based on the marks scored in the qualifying examination. Consequent to such conclusions and findings the learned Tribunal disposed of O.A.(EKM)No.367 of 2015 on the aforesaid lines and it is aggrieved by the aforesaid directions that PSC has filed this Original Petition. O.P.(KAT)No.317 of 2018 8. The applicants in O.A.No.435 of 2018 are the petitioners herein. They applied for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) in different subjects in the Higher Secondary Education Department pursuant to Annexures A1, A1(a) and A1(b) notifications issued by the PSC respectively on 18.8.2017, 18.8.2017 and 30.8.2017. In the Original Application they challenged Annexure-A2 circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 whereunder 'basis of marking' was revised and provided for granting credit for academic marks out of 30, to be added to the marks obtained by candidates concerned in the written test and interview. Virtually, their challenge against AnnexureA2 circular was to the extent it operates equally to PG candidates of annual scheme and semester scheme while granting credit for academic marks out of 30. They also sought for such other reliefs including a direction to PSC to review and re-fix the criteria for awarding weightage marks for PG annual scheme candidates and PG semester scheme and equally qualified candidates. The Tribunal considered the contentions and held that the issue of granting credit for academic marks in selections conducted by PSC is no longer res integra in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sajan N. Menon's case (supra). As noticed hereinbefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners herein for challenging Annexure-A2 circular dated 16.8.2013 and consequently, repelled them and dismissed the O.A. 9. Hereafter in this judgment the parties who were candidates in the selections in question are referred to as 'the applicants' and the State of Kerala and the others who were the respondents in the O.As concerned are referred to as 'the respondents', in accordance with their rank in O.A.No.435 of 2018. In fact, their ranks and status in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015 and in O.A.No.435 of 2018, are the same. 10. In fact, their ranks and status in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015 and in O.A.No.435 of 2018, are the same. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants in the above cases, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 11. The petitioners virtually reiterate the contentions raised before the Tribunal, before us. We will consider the common contentions as also the independent contentions raised by the parties. Evidently, the applicants rely on Rule 3 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure to contend that it empowers PSC only to conduct all or any one or more of the tests/examinations viz., written examination, practical test, physical efficiency test, oral test (interview) and any other test which it may deem fit to hold. It is their further contention that in such circumstances, when the Commission decided to hold a test to assess the merit of candidates it could do so only by resorting to any of the modes prescribed under Rule 3 of the said Rules of Procedure. Awarding credit for academic marks is not at all an examination or test prescribed thereunder and therefore, the PSC was not empowered to assess the inter se merit of the candidates by employing such a method. Furthermore, it is contended that Clause 339 of the Manual of Law Relating to Kerala Public Service Commission, even if taken as empowering the Commission to fix credit for academic marks, Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure makes it unworkable and hence no credit could be given to academic marks. It is contended that Clause 339 of the PSC Manual as also the circulars issued by PSC relating 'basis of marking' are clearly ultra vires the Rules. At this juncture, what is noticeable is the absolute absence of any challenge against Clause 339 of the PSC Manual in both the O.As. True that only the power of judicial review is available to this Court against an order passed by an Administrative Tribunal. In such circumstances, the applicants cannot raise a challenge against the same in this proceedings and very rightly they have not sought for any declaration in this proceedings to the effect that the said clause is ultra vires the Rules. In such circumstances, the applicants cannot raise a challenge against the same in this proceedings and very rightly they have not sought for any declaration in this proceedings to the effect that the said clause is ultra vires the Rules. Therefore, the contentions based on Clause 339 of the PSC Manual that it is ultra vires the Rules have to be appreciated bearing in mind the said indisputable position of fact. 12. Yet another contention taken up by the applicants is that by virtue of Article 320(1) of the Constitution of India, Union and State Public Service Commissions are to conduct examinations for effecting appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the States, as the case may be, and therefore, in making appointments PSC has to go by the rules of recruitment framed by the Government concerned. The Special Rules only require candidates to clear the Post Graduate examinations with 50% marks to earn eligibility to apply for the posts in question. Based on the said circumstances, it is contended that the relevance of marks in the qualifying examination cannot be stretched beyond that and made as 'basis of marking' along with marks in the written test/OMR Test and interview in the matter of recruitment by PSC. It is also their contention that Sajan N. Menon's case (supra) did not deal with the kind of challenge raised by the applicants i.e., based on the alleged inequality and inequity in granting credit for academic marks in terms of Annexure-A2 circular by treating them alike without taking into account the awarding of liberalized marks under the semester scheme when compared to the annual scheme. Moreover, it is contended that PSC has modified Circular No.12/95 dated 19.12.1995 which was upheld by the Tribunal as per order dated 2.5.2018 in O.A.Nos.1601 & 2324 of 2016 relying on the decision in Sajan N. Menon's case and introduced Circular No.3/2011 dated 18.1.2011 and then revised the same as per Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013. The circular dated 16.8.2013 is Annexure-A5 in the former original petition and Annexure-A2 in the latter original petition. According to the petitioners, the said action from the part of the PSC would reveal that PSC itself found Annexure-A3 circular inequitable despite the fact that it was upheld by the Tribunal relying on the decision in Sajan N. Menon's case. The circular dated 16.8.2013 is Annexure-A5 in the former original petition and Annexure-A2 in the latter original petition. According to the petitioners, the said action from the part of the PSC would reveal that PSC itself found Annexure-A3 circular inequitable despite the fact that it was upheld by the Tribunal relying on the decision in Sajan N. Menon's case. The other contention which was raised is based on Rule 11 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. The contention is that going by the same PSC has to take a decision as to the basis on which marks should be awarded in any particular examination and the word 'basis' used in Rule 11(ii) can only mean all or any one or more of the tests prescribed in Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure i.e., written examination, practical test, physical efficiency test, oral test (interview) and any other test or examination which the Commission may deem fit to hold. Based on the said provision it is further contended that under the guise of following Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure PSC could not grant credit for academic marks as has been done in the case on hand. 13. Thus, the factual and legal contentions raised in the aforementioned Original Applications from which the captioned Original Petitions arose and also the pleadings of the applicants in the Original Petitions would reveal that virtually, the applicants in those O.As, who are either petitioners or respondents in the above O.Ps, are aggrieved by the 'basis of marking' adopted by the PSC in the matter of conduct of selection based on the notifications referred hereinbefore. According to them, but for the application of the 'basis of marking' under Annexure-A2 circular dated 16.8.2013 which provides for grant of credit for academic marks they would not have been pushed down in rank in the ranked list in view of the marks scored by them in the written examination as also the interview conducted by the PSC as part of the selection process. In fact, they are more aggrieved by the aforesaid objectionable part of the `basis of marking' inasmuch as, it was applied alike in the case of persons like the applicants who underwent post graduation following the annual scheme and the others who underwent the said course following the semester scheme. 14. In fact, they are more aggrieved by the aforesaid objectionable part of the `basis of marking' inasmuch as, it was applied alike in the case of persons like the applicants who underwent post graduation following the annual scheme and the others who underwent the said course following the semester scheme. 14. We have already noticed that the common grievance as also challenge of the applicants is against the 'basis of marking' provided in Annexure-A2 Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013. Indisputably, in the selections effected by the PSC based on the notifications referred hereinbefore, in which the applicants had partaken, the 'basis of marking' was the one provided under AnnexureA2 Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013. Going by the said circular credit for academic marks out of 30 has to be added to the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test as also in the interview conducted as part of the selection process. True that the petitioners in O.P.(KAT)No.442 of 2017 arising from O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015 had taken up contentions of infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and violation of the principles laid down in Manjusree's case, Mohd. Raisul Islam's case and in Jagadish Chandra Singh Bora's case (supra) besides the contention of alteration of the selection procedure after the commencement of the selection process as the factor vitiating the selection process in the light of the said decisions. As can be seen from the order impugned in O.P.(KAT)No.442 of 2017 the learned Single Member of the Tribunal accepted such contentions in regard to the selections called in question there, which were effected based on Annexure-A1 notification dated 31.12.2010 therein for appointment to the post of HSST (Mathematics) (Senior) and allied categories with category No.457/2010. The consequential directions to revise the ranked list concerned by excluding the grace marks and also to review of advice and appointments and such other directions were issued based on the conclusions and findings in the said order. As can be seen from the impugned order in O.P.(KAT)No.317/2018 passed in O.A.No.435 of 2018 the challenge against Annexure-A2 circular viz., Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 was repelled by a Division Bench of the Tribunal and consequently the said O.A. was dismissed. As can be seen from the impugned order in O.P.(KAT)No.317/2018 passed in O.A.No.435 of 2018 the challenge against Annexure-A2 circular viz., Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 was repelled by a Division Bench of the Tribunal and consequently the said O.A. was dismissed. In the light of the aforesaid situation as also taking note of the nature of the rival contentions we will firstly consider the question whether 'granting credit for academic marks in the matter of selection to teaching posts effected by PSC' is permissible in law ? As a matter of fact there is no serious challenge in granting credit for academic marks and the serious challenge is against its application uniformly in the case of persons post graduated after undergoing annual scheme and those who underwent the same under semester scheme. At the same time, in view of the fact that as per order in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015 the Tribunal directed for exclusion of credit granted for academic marks the consideration cannot be confined to the contention of invidious discrimination between persons who had undergone P.G. Course under annual scheme and those who had undergone the same under semester scheme. 15. Before adverting to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sajan N. Menon's case (supra) we will refer to the relevant provisions. Clause 339 of the Manual of Law Relating to Kerala Public Service Commission provides for 'basis of marking' as hereunder:- “339. Basis of Marking (i) If selection to a post is finalised by written test and interview, the maximum marks for interview shall be 20% of the maximum marks for the Written Test. The Basis of ranking in such cases shall be marks for the Written Test + Marks for the interview. (ii) In the case of selections finalised on the basis of qualifying marks and interview, basis of marking will be the percentage of marks for the qualifying examination plus interview marks out of 20. (iii) If the selection is made on the basis of the aggregate of the percentage of marks for the qualifying examination, the percentage of marks for the written test and the marks for interview, the maximum marks for the interview should be fixed as 40. (iii) If the selection is made on the basis of the aggregate of the percentage of marks for the qualifying examination, the percentage of marks for the written test and the marks for interview, the maximum marks for the interview should be fixed as 40. (iv) If the selection is made on the basis of practical test and the interview, the basis of marking should be grade marks for the practical test plus interview marks out of 25. (v) In cases where selection is made on the basis of interview alone, the marks for the interview should be out of 100. (vi) For selection to teaching posts in Colleges (general and professional), Higher Secondary, Vocational Higher Secondary Departments (except for that in Medical Education Department) the basis of marking will be:- (a) For Ranked Lists preparing on the basis of Written Test/OMR Test: Percentage of marks for the written test/OMR Test + Credit for academic marks out of 30 (i.e., percentage of marks secured in the qualifying examination out of 30) + interview marks out of 20 + ten marks as weightage as detailed 1. Non qualifying M.Phil 2 marks 2. Non qualifying Ph.D 4 marks 3. Both M.Phil and Ph.D 5 marks (non qualifying) 4. Post Doctoral Degree 5 marks (b) For Ranked Lists prepared on the basis of interview alone: Percentage of Academic Marks + Interview Marks out of 20 + 10 marks as Weightage as detailed above. (vii) For posts for which three year Diploma is a qualification and selection is made on the basis of interview along and the selection criteria are marks for the qualifying test + Interview Marks out of 20, the marks of the second and third year alone need to be taken into account for calculating the marks of the qualifying test. (Circular 2/2005) (viii) In cases where the selection is to be finalised on the basis of written test, practical test and interview, the basis of marking will be marks for the written test + Grade Mark for the Practical test + Interview mark out of 25. Note:-1. While calculating the percentage of academic marks, fractions should not be rounded off. 2. Percentage of marks is to be calculated on the basis of the aggregate marks for the whole examination leading to the Post Graduate Degree/Professional Degree. 3. Note:-1. While calculating the percentage of academic marks, fractions should not be rounded off. 2. Percentage of marks is to be calculated on the basis of the aggregate marks for the whole examination leading to the Post Graduate Degree/Professional Degree. 3. As only credit is given for the percentage of academic marks, the Sessional/Internal Assessment Marks also will be reckoned. 4. While applying the norms in respect of teaching posts in the Training Colleges, the percentage of marks will be calculated on the basis of the aggregate marks secured in the M.Ed. Degree Examination. (ix) While calculating the percentage of Marks in respect of optional subjects for the preparation of Ranked Lists for selection to the post of High School Assistants, the percentage of marks for main subjects as well as subsidiary subjects shall also be taken into account. (x) In the case of selection to the post of High school Assistant (Languages) if the Ranked List is to be finalised on the basis of interview alone the basis of marking for interview in such cases will be as follows:- (a) Interview : 100 Marks (b) P.G. (M.A.) in the Subject I Class : 10 Marks II Class : 5 Marks (c) M.Ed. : 5 Marks (No extra marks for Class) Note:-No weightage marks for the qualification viz., Graduation + B.Ed. Or Title of Oriental Learning + L.T.T. Will be awarded. Weightage for Post Graduation need be given only if the optional subject for Graduation as well as Post Graduation is same.” (underline supplied) Rules 3 and 11 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure read thus:- Rule-3. “The Commission may conduct all or any one or more of the following examinations to assess the merits of candidates considered for recruitment to a service or post: (i) Written Examination (ii) Practical Test (iii) Physical Efficiency Test (iv) Oral Test (Interview) (v) Any other Test or Examination which the Commission may deem fit to hold.” Rule 11. “A decision as to the following shall be taken by the Commission in respect of all selections made by them. “A decision as to the following shall be taken by the Commission in respect of all selections made by them. (i) whether any candidate possesses the prescribed qualifications for the post; (ii) the basis on which the marks should be awarded; (iii) the minimum or minima of marks for inclusion in the ranked list; (iv) the manner in which the practical examination, physical efficiency test or any other test or examination is to be conducted. (v) Any other matter incidental to the selection.” 16. As can be seen from Clause 339(vi) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual it provides the 'basis of marking' for selection to teaching posts in Colleges (general and professional), Higher Secondary, Vocational Higher Secondary Departments (except for that in Medical Education Department). Going by the Manual, the credit for academic marks should be out of 30 in the matter of such selections falling under Clause 339(vi). In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is nothing which empowers the PSC for awarding credit for academic marks in the matter of recruitment conducted by it to the posts in question. As stated hereinbefore, in O.A.No.435 of 2018 against the order of which O.P.(KAT)No.317 of 2018 is filed, the applicants had responded to notifications issued subsequent to Annexure-A2 Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013. At the same time, the applicants in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015, the order of which is under challenge in O.P.(KAT)No.442 of 2017, had responded to Annexure-A1 notification therein dated 31.12.2010 which is evidently prior to the issuance of Annexure-A2. OMR Test in connection with the selection process initiated pursuant to the said notification dated 31.12.2010, was conducted on 2.2.2013 and it was followed by an interview. Thus, it is obvious that Annexure-A2 circular was issued only subsequent to the commencement of the selection process pursuant to Annexure-A1 notification. We are of the view that even then the consideration cannot be confined based only on that fact, as even prior to Annexure-A2 dated 16.8.2013, on the issue of granting weightage for academic marks, Circular No.12/95 dated 19.12.1995 was in force. It is also relevant to note that before the conduct of the OMR Test on 2.2.2013 the said circular dated 19.12.1995 was revised and the Commission re-fixed the 'basis of marking' vide Circular No.3/2011 dated 18.1.2011. It is also relevant to note that before the conduct of the OMR Test on 2.2.2013 the said circular dated 19.12.1995 was revised and the Commission re-fixed the 'basis of marking' vide Circular No.3/2011 dated 18.1.2011. Circular No.12/95 dated 19.12.1995 and Circular No.3/2011 dated 18.1.2011 were produced in O.A.No.435 of 2018 as Annexures-A3 and A4 respectively. Thus, it can be seen that prior to Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013, on the subject, there existed certain circulars like Annexures A3 & A4 for providing weightage/credit for academic marks. In such circumstances, consideration solely based on Annexure-A2 alone will not be redound to any advantage to the applicants. 17. In the matter of consideration of the issues posed for consideration, the decision of the Division Bench in Sajan N. Menon's case (supra) assumes relevance. We have already taken note of the fact that there is no direct challenge by the applicants against Clause 339 of the PSC Manual which provides for granting credit for academic marks out of 30 for selection to teaching posts in Colleges (general and professional), Higher Secondary, Vocational Higher Secondary Departments (except for that in Medical Education Department), as one of the basis of marking. In Sajan N. Menon's case (supra) the contention of the petitioner was that selection should have been made taking into consideration of the marks obtained by the candidate in the common written test alone and not by giving weightage for the marks obtained in the qualifying examination, the standard of which differs. The petitioner therein assailed the action on the ground of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. PSC resisted such contentions contending that the procedure followed by it for selection to the post of HSST Computer Science/Computer Application was in accordance with the then existing practice being followed by the PSC. Evidently, it was also contended there that the selection was conducted following the procedure laid down under the PSC Rules of Procedure as well as the Manual. Furthermore, it was contended there that Rule 11(ii) of the PSC Rules of Procedure read with Clause 202 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual would enable the PSC to adopt a procedure of grading which would minimise inequality if any, between the qualifications obtained by the applicants undergoing the examinations conducted by various Universities and the educational institutions. Furthermore, it was contended there that Rule 11(ii) of the PSC Rules of Procedure read with Clause 202 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual would enable the PSC to adopt a procedure of grading which would minimise inequality if any, between the qualifications obtained by the applicants undergoing the examinations conducted by various Universities and the educational institutions. Based on the rival contentions in Sajan N. Menon's case the Division Bench considered the question whether PSC could give credit to academic marks for selection/appointment to teaching posts. It was held that results in an academic examination, which is prescribed as a qualifying examination by the PSC would generally be a reflection of the overall standard and the perception of the candidate concerned. Further it was held therein that adoption of such a procedure would increase the quality of selection. The Division Bench was considering the said question based on Clause 202 of the old Manual which was the pari materia provision to Clause 339 in the present Manual. In Sajan N. Menon's case this Court held further that marks obtained by candidates in the qualifying examinations could not be said to be not a yardstick to measure merit even if the candidates qualifying themselves in various examinations conducted by different educational institutions and of course, the inequality between the qualifying examinations should be reduced by adopting a system of equalisation of marks through normalization process. It was also held thus:- “To ignore the marks obtained by a candidate in the qualifying examination as a whole may be suicidal. After all, students take a qualifying examination after undergoing a system of education which develops their overall personality. If we ignore the qualifying examination completely that would affect the very standard of education in the State because the students would be concentrating more on the Entrance examination rather than the qualifying examination ........................... Results of a qualifying examination is generally a reflection of the overall standard of the candidate and his perception. PSC in our view has taken a conscious decision to give weightage for credits to the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination following a method of grading which would only increase the quality of selection, consequently a better qualified and meritorious candidate could be selected for the post.” (underline supplied) 18. PSC in our view has taken a conscious decision to give weightage for credits to the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination following a method of grading which would only increase the quality of selection, consequently a better qualified and meritorious candidate could be selected for the post.” (underline supplied) 18. The Division Bench in Sajan N. Menon's case also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Ansar Ahammed v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1994 SC 141 ). In Ansar Ahammed's case (supra) the Apex Court upheld a selection made by the Bihar Public Service Commission to the post of Unani Medical Officer based on interview as also the academic performance of candidates concerned. True that in that case, for the selection to the post of Unani Medical Officer there was no written test. In that case PSC gave weightage of 50% marks for academic performance and 50% for interview. It was held that the said procedure adopted by the Commission did not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and by giving equal weight to academic performance the Commission had virtually reduced the possibility of arbitrariness. 19. Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the decision in Sajan N. Menon's case is also relevant in the context of the contentions and they read thus:- "8. Public Service Commission is a constitutional functionary and the duties and functions of the Commission have been laid down in Art.320 of the Constitution and they are: (1) to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State; (2) The Commission shall be consulted (a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts, (b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions, transfers. Public Service Commission follows the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure in the matter of conducting selection to various posts in the State service. As we have already indicated, in accordance with R.11 (ii) read with cl.202 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual, P.S.C. follows a system of grading. Public Service Commission follows the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure in the matter of conducting selection to various posts in the State service. As we have already indicated, in accordance with R.11 (ii) read with cl.202 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual, P.S.C. follows a system of grading. By that system the basis of marking in respect of teaching posts in colleges (general as well as professional) shall be the percentage of marks for the written test plus credit for the percentage of academic marks upto a maximum of 50 plus interview marks out of 30. In respect of teaching posts in the colleges (general as well as professional) where the academic marks secured by the candidates also have to be reckoned for the purpose of ranking, the academic marks will be converted into proper grades and credit marks awarded. In the grading system candidates who have got 85 and above will be graded as A+, 75 to 84Grade A, 65 to 74-Grade B+, 55 to 64-Grade B, 45 to 54-Grade C+, 35 to 44-Grade C and below 35% if any,-Grade D. As only credit is given for the percentage of academic marks the sessional/internal assessment marks also would be reckoned. Such a method has been adopted for providing a common basis for selection of candidates and therefore vulnerability if any, between the various qualifying examinations can be met to a large extent thereby attaining equality. 9. Constitutional body like the P.S.C. invested with the task of selecting best suitable person for the post, has evolved a method which they believe would minimise the inequality between the candidates who have come out of qualifying examinations conducted by various Universities and Educational Institutions. The question is, in the absence of a better system suggested, whether the P.S.C. can be found fault with, in following the above-mentioned system which, to a large extent, though not fully, eliminates inequality. Courts sitting under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in such a situation would be slow to unsettle a process followed by P.S.C., which according to that expert body would bring the candidates to a common platform while testing their merits in the qualifying examinations. Such a method, in our view, cannot be termed as arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India." 20. Such a method, in our view, cannot be termed as arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India." 20. While parting with the judgment in Sajan N. Menon's case (supra) the Division Bench held:- “PSC in this case followed a procedure which in our view is fair and reasonable. Of course, there may be still scope for improvement to attain the ultimate goal of hundred percent equality, which may be a far fetched dream but more and more innovative methods need to be explored and applied so that we will be nearer to the ultimate goal.” 21. We are also of the view that attempt to the nines is appreciable though it is difficult to achieve. Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 would reveal that such an attempt was, in fact, made by the PSC. A perusal of Circular No.12/95 dated 19.12.1995 and paragraph 8 in Sajan N. Menon's case would undoubtedly reveal that though the said circular was not specifically referred to therein the grading mentioned therein for giving credit for academic marks and the one prescribed under circular dated 19.12.1995 would reveal that they are, in fact, same. A perusal of the circular dated 19.12.1995 and Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 would reveal the attempt made by the PSC, rather, the steps taken by PSC to eliminate inequality, if any. A perusal of paragraph 8 therein and Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 would reveal that the credit for the percentage of academic marks was higher at the time when the decision in Sajan N. Menon's case was rendered. Now, it is given out of 30. Even when it was higher, for the reasons given in paragraph 9, as extracted above, the Division Bench held that the method then followed was not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We see no reason to disagree with the reasoning given in paragraph 9 by the Division Bench in Sajan N. Menon's case and in fact, for the same reasons we hold that the present system followed brought in normalization and inequality, if any, was further eliminated to the extent possible by the circular dated 16.8.2013. It is also relevant to note that the provisions thereunder are perfectly in tune with Clause 339 of the PSC Manual. We will deal with it in detail, a little later. It is also relevant to note that the provisions thereunder are perfectly in tune with Clause 339 of the PSC Manual. We will deal with it in detail, a little later. In short, after referring to the provisions under Clause 202 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual (the old Manual) and Rule 11(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure as also the decisions referred (supra) of the Hon'ble Apex Court the Division Bench held that granting of weightage for marks in the qualifying examination by the PSC is valid and justified. For all the aforesaid reasons the challenge against the system followed in the light of Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 cannot be said to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22. As noticed hereinbefore, a contention was also raised by the applicants in O.P.(KAT)No.317 of 2018 that the basis referred to in Rule 11(ii) of the Rules of Procedure which mandates a decision on 'the basis on which the marks should be awarded' could only mean marks scored in the tests prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure namely, written examination, practical test, physical efficiency test, oral test (interview) and any other test or examination which the Commission may deem fit to hold. Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure prescribes examinations or tests that could be conducted by the Commission for recruitment to a service or post. Hence, according to them, Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure could not be relied on to award marks on a test not contemplated under Rule 3, for granting weightage for marks secured at the post graduate examinations. We are afraid the said contention cannot be upheld. Firstly, granting credit for academic marks, cannot at any stretch of imagination, be described as an action of awarding marks on a test. Going by the principle in Sajan N. Menon's case the said action has to be taken only as legal and valid. In the absence of any challenge against the provision under Clause 339 of the PSC Manual and in view of the provision thereunder the said action cannot be said to be illegal or invalid. Going by the principle in Sajan N. Menon's case the said action has to be taken only as legal and valid. In the absence of any challenge against the provision under Clause 339 of the PSC Manual and in view of the provision thereunder the said action cannot be said to be illegal or invalid. In this context, it is to be noted that in Sajan N. Menon's case such action was held as valid and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, by the Division Bench in view of the provision pari materia to Clause 339 of the present Manual available under the old PSC Manual viz., Clause 202 therein as also Rule 11(ii) of the Rules of Procedure. We have already held that we find no reason to disagree or to deviate from the view taken in Sajan N. Menon's case. Hence, this contention also must fail. 23. As held in Sajan N. Menon's case we are also of the view that results in a qualifying examination is a reflection of the overall standard as also perception of the candidates concerned and giving credence to such aspects in the matter of selection to teaching posts would enable the PSC to select best suitable candidates for the post besides averting chance of inequality. When the Public Service Commission which is constituted under Article 315 of the Constitution of India to discharge the functions under Article 320 in regard to its discharge it adopts a criteria for conducting selection in such a manner to rule out the possibility of arbitrariness, such approach cannot be interfered by Courts in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction in the absence of arbitrariness and discrimination. Our view that such an action is not arbitrary or discriminatory is fortified by the decision in Sajan N. Menon's case. In short, for increasing the quality of selection it would be open to the PSC to give weightage/credit to the marks obtained in the qualifying examination, in the matter of selection to teaching posts. We are of the considered view that PSC which is entrusted with the task of conducting examinations for appointments to the services of the State should have the liberty to adopt appropriate methods for increasing the quality of selection and for eschewing the element of arbitrariness. We are of the considered view that PSC which is entrusted with the task of conducting examinations for appointments to the services of the State should have the liberty to adopt appropriate methods for increasing the quality of selection and for eschewing the element of arbitrariness. The method permitted under Clause 339(vi) of the Manual can only be held as one such method evolved by the PSC. It cannot be held ultra vires the provisions under Rule 11 read with Rule 3, of the Rules of Procedure. 24. When once it is found that PSC is empowered to give credit for academic marks in the matter of selection conducted by it the question is whether the selections in question invite interference on any other grounds. 25. We have already taken note of the fact that the selections to teaching posts in different categories through different notifications, involved in the cases on hand, were undertaken by the PSC to fill up such posts in the Higher Secondary Education Department. A specific contention has been taken in O.P.(KAT)No.442 of 2017 that PSC has shown invidious discrimination inasmuch as, granting of credit for academic marks in terms of circular dated 16.8.2013 was not insisted, rather, not adopted in the matter of selection held on an earlier occasion pursuant to Annexure-A6 notification and in the matter of selection held subsequent to the one on hand covered by Annexure-A8, though the selections covered by them were also to teaching posts under the very same department viz., Higher Secondary Education Department. It is further contended that though such a specific contention has been raised no specific reason has been assigned by the PSC for not following Annexure-A2 Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 in regard to the selections covered by Annexures A6 and A8. In this context, certain other aspects also assume relevance. Though the circular dated 19.12.1995 (AnnexureA4 in O.A.No.435 of 2015) specifically referred to in Sajan N. Menon's case in fact, paragraph 8 of the said decision would reveal that the contention of the PSC that then prevalent practice of grading system was followed accepted by the Division Bench. PSC had since then revised the same and thereafter re-revised the relevant circular as can be seen from the circulars dated 18.1.2011 and 16.8.2013. PSC had since then revised the same and thereafter re-revised the relevant circular as can be seen from the circulars dated 18.1.2011 and 16.8.2013. On such revision or re-revision of circulars PSC cannot be found fault with in the light of the decision in Sajan N. Menon's case itself. We have already taken note of the fact that while parting with the case the Division Bench held that there is still scope for improvement of the procedures adopted by the PSC in the matter of conducting selection to different posts. We have already quoted paragraph 13 of the said decision made in that regard by the Division Bench. A careful scrutiny of the very circulars viz., circulars dated 19.12.1995, 18.1.2011 and 16.8.2013 would reveal the earnest attempt on the part of the PSC to reduce to the minimum the possibility of inequality or inequity existing in the procedure of granting credit for academic marks in the matter of selection to teaching posts. It also would reveal the attempt to bring in a system of equalization of marks through normalization process and thereby avert inequality between qualifying examinations. 26. Now, we will deal with the aforesaid contention regarding the alleged discriminatory treatment viz., treating unequals equally. The contention is that with the introduction of semester scheme marks were being given liberally as compared to the annual examination scheme and hence, treating them as one class in the matter of grant of credit for academic marks and applying the same grading system in that regard would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Master's Degree in the concerned subject with not less than 50% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto by a University in Kerala is prescribed as a qualification for the posts in question. How can, in such circumstances, the fact that a candidate underwent PG course under annual scheme or semester scheme or the contention that comparatively marks are awarded liberally under the semester scheme, be a reason to contend that they do not belong to one class and treating them alike in the matter of grant of credit for academic marks is differential and discriminatory treatment. Treating persons possessing Master's Degree irrespective of the scheme under which they underwent the said course alike cannot be styled as arbitrary discrimination. Treating persons possessing Master's Degree irrespective of the scheme under which they underwent the said course alike cannot be styled as arbitrary discrimination. A further classification among them on the ground that 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, as can be seen from paragraphs 8 and 9 in that case. When 'basis of marking' as revealed from the said paragraphs was already given the stamp of approval by this Court, as can be seen from the decision in Sajan N. Menon's case, an interference with the selection for following such a 'basis of marking' in tune with Clause 339 of the PSC Manual is impermissible. In this context, it is also to be noted that the weightage for academic performance to be given in regard to the selection conducted by the PSC is virtually reduced by PSC subsequent to Sajan N. Menon's case. In other words, it is the case of the applicants themselves that earlier credit for academic marks based on the earlier circular was 'out of 50' and now it is 'out of 30'. The applicants cannot have, rather did not have, a contention that circular dated 19.12.1995 or 18.1.2011 is more favourable than the circular dated 16.8.2013. In view of the existence of such circulars the applicants cannot canvass the position that virtually there occurred an infraction of the procedure by introducing provision for awarding credit for academic marks. Grant of credit to academic marks also cannot be taken as another test. In view of the existence of such circulars the applicants cannot canvass the position that virtually there occurred an infraction of the procedure by introducing provision for awarding credit for academic marks. Grant of credit to academic marks also cannot be taken as another test. As a matter of fact, it was in existence much earlier than all the notifications involved in these cases and Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 is only one which carried out a re-fixation of the 'basis of marking'. The mere fact that the said circular dated 16.8.2013 was not followed while effecting selections pursuant to Annexures A6 & A8 notifications that culminated in Annexure-A7 and A9 ranked lists for appointments under Higher Secondary Education Department also cannot be a reason to interfere with the selections in question on that ground. In short, we do not find any reason to hold that the Division Bench of the Tribunal had committed any illegality or irregularity warranting an interference while repelling the challenge against the circular dated 16.8.2013 and consequently, in dismissing O.A.No.435 of 2018 relying on the decision of this Court in Sajan N. Menon's case (supra). In short, the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.435 of 2018 calls for no interference in exercise of the power of judicial review. 27. As regards the order passed in O.A.(Ekm.) 367 of 2015 we are of the view that it invites interference in view of our conclusions and findings. A scanning of the said order would reveal that the learned Single Member of the Tribunal did not take into consideration the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sajan N. Menon's case while rendering the impugned order in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015. As it is a binding decision on the subject it can be said that it is an order rendered per incuriam. True that the Single Member of the Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Apex Court referred supra to hold that there occurred an alteration in the selection process after its commencement. We have already found that there existed circulars issued by PSC providing for grant of credit or weightage for academic marks even prior to the circular dated 16.8.2013 and that the circular dated 16.8.2013 is more favourable to the petitioners when compared to the earlier circular dated 19.12.1995. We have already found that there existed circulars issued by PSC providing for grant of credit or weightage for academic marks even prior to the circular dated 16.8.2013 and that the circular dated 16.8.2013 is more favourable to the petitioners when compared to the earlier circular dated 19.12.1995. That apart, a test under Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure is to be conducted and it is only a relevant factor available for consideration while assessing the inter se merit of candidates and therefore, granting marks therefor, cannot be held either as discriminatory or arbitrary. Hence, it is impermissible in the light of the decision of this Court in Sajan N. Menon's case and that alone was done by the PSC in the matter of selections pursuant to the notifications referred hereinbefore. The selections in question and also the ranked lists prepared pursuant thereto, cannot be interfered with in the said circumstances. The direction of the learned Single Member of the Tribunal to exclude the marks granted for the marks scored in the qualifying examination virtually is a direction in conflict with the decision of this Court in Sajan N. Menon's case rendered after referring to the Apex Court's decision in Ansar Ahammed's case (supra) and therefore, it cannot be sustained. Needless to say that in such circumstances the direction to the 3rd respondent to revise Annexure-A2 ranked list by excluding such grace marks and to review the advice and appointments also cannot be sustained. 28. The impugned order in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015 would reveal that the 4th respondent who is holding rank No.322 in the rank list concerned was impleaded to represent such persons who gained advantage on the basis of academic weightage and notice by paper publication was also taken up. The Tribunal observed that despite impleadment of the 4th respondent in representative capacity and taking out paper publication neither the 4th respondent or any other rank holders had chosen to contest the Original Application. In this context, it is to be noted that going by the contentions of the petitioners they are holding rank Nos.319, 377 and 442 in the rank list which was published on 16.2.2015 and their contention was that if the academic weightage is not taken into consideration they would be placed at rank Nos.187, 176 & 196 respectively. But, they have impleaded only a person holding rank No.322 in a representative capacity. But, they have impleaded only a person holding rank No.322 in a representative capacity. In the O.A. they have specifically stated that 23 advices were made from the said ranked list dated 16.2.2015 before the said O.A. was filed before the Tribunal. Though so many persons holding much higher ranks than the applicants are available in the list they have chosen only to implead a person holding lower rank than the first applicant in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015. True that they have also taken paper publication. A perusal of paragraph 16 of the impugned order would reveal the conclusion of the Tribunal on one crucial aspect and it reads thus:- “16. Considering all the above, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled to succeed and Annexure A2 ranked list is liable to be revised by excluding the grace marks granted for the performance in the qualifying examination. Since no candidates have challenged the non-inclusion in the ranked list, the revision of the ranked list as stated above shall be limited only those who are included in Annexure A2 ranked list. It necessarily folllows that the advice and appointments already effected will have to be reviewed on the basis of such revised ranked list. However, such review shall not result in cancellation of advice or appointment already made. But their seniority can be revised accordingly.” It would reveal that taking note of the fact that no candidates had challenged their non-inclusion in the ranked list the Tribunal ordered revision of ranked list to be limited only to those who are included in Annexure-A2 ranked list. After holding thus it was held further that following the said direction advices and appointments already effected have to be reviewed on the basis of such revised ranked list. This has to be read along with the statement of the applicants that certain persons were already advised and appointed from the list drawn on 16.2.2015 before they approached the Tribunal. However, none of them was made a party in the said O.A. The reason that such review would not result in cancellation of advice or appointment already made but would result only in revision of seniority is no reason for ordering for review of advices and appointments already effected without the said 23 persons already advised and appointed, in the array of the parties. In this context, it is to be noted that since their number is only 23 all of them should have been impleaded as parties to the O.A. and there cannot be a doubt with respect to the fact that they were all necessary parties to the O.A. taking note of the reliefs sought for and granted by the Tribunal. In other words, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained as the O.A. was, in fact, bad for non-joinder of such necessary parties. The impleadment of one of the persons who holds rank lower than the first applicant and higher than applicants 2 and 3 cannot cure the said defect. For these reasons and also in view of our finding that the very direction to exclude the marks granted for the marks scored in the qualifying examination is against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sajan N. Menon's case and the order was passed without referring to the said decision, in other words, in per incuriam, it cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order in O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015 is set aside. In other words, the ranked list in question can be operated by the PSC in accordance with law. In the result, O.P.(KAT)No.442 of 2017 is allowed as above and O.A.(Ekm.)No.367 of 2015 will stand dismissed. So also O.P. (KAT)No.317 of 2018 is dismissed.