Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 146 (KER)

Arshaj S. v. Secretary, Department of Tourism

2022-02-11

ALEXANDER THOMAS, VIJU ABRAHAM

body2022
JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the impugned common judgment dated 17.11.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby WP(C).Nos.23128 & 23120 of 2021 (filed by the appellants herein) have been dismissed. 2. Heard Smt. Priya Shanavas, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellants/writ petitioners and Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in the WAs/WP(C)s. 3. The sole appellant in each of these two appeals have responded to the selection notification issued on behalf of the respondents for selection and appointment on contract basis to the post of Secretary, District Tourism Promotion Council (DTPC) in respect of the 14 districts in the State of Kerala. They have participated in the written examination and they were excluded from the shortlist of candidates who were called for the interview. 4. The appellants would impugn the selection process on two grounds. The first ground is that one of the norms in the selection process was that the unit of appointment shall be 'district' and the appointment will be made separately for each of the 14 districts concerned, and that the said norm was subsequently changed by the Government after the last date of submission of applications and therefore the entire selection process carried on the basis of changed norms, which have been introduced midway of the selection process, is illegal and ultra vires. The second contention raised by the appellants is that the shortlisting of candidates done by the respondents in this case, by introducing a cut off mark of 24.75 marks out of 100 marks in the written examination, which has no rational basis for justifying the impugned shortlisting process and which is not provided in the selection notification, is illegal. 5. It is common ground that in pursuance of the impugned selection process, the written examination was conducted by the respondents in which altogether 138 candidates, including the two appellants herein, have participated. As regards the first contention, the following aspects would be relevant. 5. It is common ground that in pursuance of the impugned selection process, the written examination was conducted by the respondents in which altogether 138 candidates, including the two appellants herein, have participated. As regards the first contention, the following aspects would be relevant. [The documents referred to hereinafter will be with reference to the documents marked in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in WP(C).No.23128/2021 which has led to W.A.No.1544/2021 as well as the documents in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in said W.A.No.1544/2021.] The norms for the present selection process have been issued by the competent authority of the 1st respondent State Government in the Tourism Department as per Ext.R-2(a) G.O. (MS) No.15/2021/Tourism dated 18.8.2021. The annexure appended to the said Ext.R-2(a) G.O. deals with the norms of the selection process. Part III of said scheme deals with the revised guidelines/criteria for the selection and appointment to the post of Secretary, DTPC. Clause 2 of Part III of said scheme deals with qualifications, experience for appointment to the post of Secretary, DTPC. Therein it is clearly stipulated as follows : "Appointments to the post of Secretary, DTPC will be carried out from open market, on contract basis, strictly observing reservation norms applicable." [emphasis supplied] 6. Clause 5 of Part III of said scheme deals with selection procedure and it is stipulated therein as follows : "The Director, Department of Tourism will invite separate applications to the post of Secretary, DTPC in each District." 7. Clause 6 of Part III of said scheme deals with written test and interview and thereunder it is stipulated as follows: "Eligible candidates will be alled for a written test, involving KITTS/LBS for short-listing of candidates for further selection process. After written test a panel of 10 candidates may be shortlisted for interview for each district on the basis of performance in written test. The short listed candidates will be called for an interview ahead of final selection. The interview will comprise of face to face interaction with the interview board. Marks for performance in written test and interview will be awarded in the ratio 60:40." 8. The short listed candidates will be called for an interview ahead of final selection. The interview will comprise of face to face interaction with the interview board. Marks for performance in written test and interview will be awarded in the ratio 60:40." 8. Hence, the abovesaid details from the scheme appended to Ext.R-2(a) G.O. dated 18.8.2021 would make it clear that the selection and appointment process will be made strictly observing the reservation norms applicable and further that the application will be invited to the post of Secretary, DTPC, in each of the 14 districts. Further that, the selection process will be on the basis of a written test to be conducted by an expert agency for shortlisting of candidates for further selection process, and then it will be followed by an interview from among the candidates included in the shortlist. Further, the marks for performance in the written test and interview will be awarded in the ratio 60:40, etc. It appears that it is in pursuance of the scheme of norms appended to Ext.R-2(a) G.O. (MS) No.15/2021/Tourism dated 18.8.2021 that respondents 2 & 3 have issued Ext.R-2(c) selection notification dated 31.8.2021 inviting applications from eligible candidates to the post of Secretary, DTPC, in each of the 14 districts in the State, wherein the last date of submission of application is stated as 14.9.2021 and the date of proposed written examination is shown as 25.9.2021. Thereafter, it appears that the 1st respondent State Government has been apprised by respondents 2 & 3 that there are serious impediments in the simultaneous implementation of both the norms for following community reservation norms as well as in making the unit of appointment as district. It came to the notice of the 1st respondent State Government that the sanctioned post of Secretary in each of the 14 districts is only one. Since, each of the 14 units of appointments are in respect of a single post cadre, community reservation norms would be practically impossible. Hence, the 1st respondent Government felt that simultaneous implementation of both the norms for strict implementation of community reservation norms as well as making the unit of appointment as district is well-nigh impossible. Since, each of the 14 units of appointments are in respect of a single post cadre, community reservation norms would be practically impossible. Hence, the 1st respondent Government felt that simultaneous implementation of both the norms for strict implementation of community reservation norms as well as making the unit of appointment as district is well-nigh impossible. Hence, before the conduct of examination on 25.9.2021, the 1st respondent State Government has issued revised norms in terms of Ext.R-2(b) G.O. (MS) No. 16/2021/Tourism dated 22.9.2021 wherein Clause 5 of Part III of the scheme appended to Ext.R-2(a) G.O. was amended as follows: "5. Selection procedure: The Director, Department of Tourism will invite applications on State wise basis to the post of Secretary, DTPC, observing all applicable reservation norms. The advertisement will be released in two Malayalam dailies and two English dailies in addition to Government Gazette/website etc. Though the selected candidate may exercise an option to choose a district of preference during posting, they will not have any claim to get posted to a particular district." 9. It is the stand of the 1st respondent that the norms for community reservation are one of the cardinal policy priority of the State and that therefore, implementation of the community reservation norms was of paramount consideration, and that the matter relating to unit of appointment as to whether the unit of appointment should be 'district wise' or 'state wise' was only an incidental issue and to ensure the paramount interest of enforcing community reservation norms, there was no other way but to change the norm for unit of appointment as 'state wise'. 10. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader that, if the norm for unit of appointment is taken as 'state wise', then there will be altogether 14 posts of Secretary, DTPC, for all the 14 districts taken together, in which 7 posts could be set apart for open competition turns (OC turns) and the balance 7 posts could be set apart for backward classes reservation turns (BC turns). Hence, the Government was constrained and compelled to issue Ext.R-2(b) norms on 22.9.2021 before the conduct of examination for introducing the abovesaid changes as it was felt to be highly necessary. Hence, the Government was constrained and compelled to issue Ext.R-2(b) norms on 22.9.2021 before the conduct of examination for introducing the abovesaid changes as it was felt to be highly necessary. Further, the learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that in Ext.R-2(c) selection notification dated 31.8.2021 published in the website, it is stated that the reservation norms, as per the rules, would be applicable but nowhere is it stated that the unit of appointment shall be on the basis of district. Also, it appears that, to fine tune the details regarding the workability of reservation norms, the 1st respondent Government has thereafter issued Ext.R-2(d) G.O.(Rt.) No.325/2021/Tourism dated 16.10.2021 wherein the open competition turns and the various backward classes reservation turns are mentioned therein. 11. The norms regarding OC turns and BC turns as mentioned in Ext.R-2(d) are as follows : 12. Further, page 2 of Ext.R-2(d) G.O. deals with apportioning the marks for interview wherein it is stated that 25 marks will be set apart for interview and 10 marks will be set apart for experience of candidates in Central/State travel and tourism related institutions and 5 marks will be set apart for experience in Government related institutions. Thus, from a combined reading of Ext.R-2(a) and Ext.R-2(d) norms it can be seen that the proportion between written test and interview process will be 60:40 and out of the 40 weightage marks, 25 marks will be set apart for interview and 10 & 5 marks each will be set apart for two other objective parameters mentioned herein relating to acquisition of experience in central/state tourism related institutions or government related institutions as the case may be. As per Ext.R-2(e) G.O.(Rt.) No.332/2021/Tourism dated 23.10.2021 it has been ordered that the action of respondents 2 & 3 in including 51 candidates in the shortlist is ratified inasmuch as, going by the marks of the written examination, both the 50th ranking candidate and the 51st ranking candidate had secured equal marks. 13. The main contention urged by the counsel for the appellants is that the change of norms introduced to Clause 5 of Part III of the Scheme appended to Ext.R-2(a) as per Ext.R-2(b) G.O., by changing the unit of appointment from district-wise to state-wise would amount to a substantial change of rules again after the commencement of selection process and that too, after the last date of submission of application. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that Ext.R-2(c) & Anx. B selection notifications have been issued on 31.8.2021 in the website, and the last date of submission of application was 14.9.2021 and the date of written test was 25.9.2021. Further, it appears that in the selection notifications published in the website as aforesaid, no mention is made therein that the unit of appointment will be district-wise and not state-wise. The stipulation regarding the unit of appointment as 'district' has been made in Clause 5 of Part III of the Scheme appended to Ext.R-2(a) G.O. dated 18.8.2021. That norm issued in Ext.R-2(a) G.O. has been amended by Ext.R-2(b) G.O. dated 22.9.2021 which appears to be before the conduct of written examination, which according to the learned Senior Government Pleader is a corrigendum/erratum proceedings to the original proceedings at Ext.R-2(a) inasmuch as both Exts.R-2(a) & R -2(b) are government orders. 14. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader would strongly urge that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no substantial change of norms midway which has in any manner prejudiced the applicants and the said change of norms has been made uniformly applicable to all candidate, and the change of norms at Ext.R-2(b) G.O. is only a corrigendum/erratum to Ext.R-2(a) G.O. for the reasons stated hereinabove, as otherwise it would have been impossible to carry out the prime policy norm of the State Government to introduce community reservation norms in the abovesaid selection process. 15. The dictum regarding the change of rules at midway of selection process, etc is well settled by a series of ruling of the Apex Court in decisions as in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Dhim Rao [2001 KHC 1206 = (2001) 10 SCC 51 ], Rakhi Roy & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors. [2010 KHC 4079 = (2010) 2 SCC 637 ] as well as Bank of India v. Aarya K.Babu [ 2019 (3) KLT 802 = (2019) 8 SCC 587 ]. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors. [2010 KHC 4079 = (2010) 2 SCC 637 ] as well as Bank of India v. Aarya K.Babu [ 2019 (3) KLT 802 = (2019) 8 SCC 587 ]. The Apex Court has categorically held in para 14 of the decision in Zonal Manager, Bank of India v. Aarya K.Babu [ 2019 (3) KLT 802 = (2019) 8 SCC 587 ] that while examining the impugned action regarding change of rules midway, what is sacrosanct would be the qualification criteria published in the notification, since, if any change made to the qualification criteria midstream is accepted by the Court so as to beneift only the petitioners before it, without making it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount to causing injustice to the others who possess such qualification, but had not applied being honest to themselves as knowingly they did not possess the qualification sought for in the notification though they otherwise held another degree. Therefore, if there is any change in qualification/criteria after the notification is issued but before the completion of the selection process and the employer/recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will be incumbent on the employer to issue corrigendum incorporating the changes to the notification and invite applications from those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same along with the applications received in response to the initial notification. The same principle will hold good when a consideration is made by the Court. It will be pertinent to refer to para 14 of the decision of the Apex Court in Zonal Manager, Bank of India v. Aarya K.Babu [ 2019 (3) KLT 802 = (2019) 8 SCC 587 ] which reads as follows: "14. If the above decision in Mohd. It will be pertinent to refer to para 14 of the decision of the Apex Court in Zonal Manager, Bank of India v. Aarya K.Babu [ 2019 (3) KLT 802 = (2019) 8 SCC 587 ] which reads as follows: "14. If the above decision in Mohd. Sohrab Khan case is kept in perspective it is clear that while examining the correctness of the action of the employer what would be sacrosanct would be the qualification criteria published in the notification, since if any change made to the qualification criteria midstream is accepted by the Court so as to benefit only the petitioners before it, without making it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount to causing injustice to the others who possess such qualification but had not applied being honest to themselves as knowingly they did not possess the qualification sought for in the notification though they otherwise held another degree. Therefore, if there is any change in qualification/criteria after the notification is issued but before the completion of the selection process and the employer/recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will be incumbent on the employer to issue corrigendum incorporating the changes to the notification and invite applications from those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same along with the applications received in response to the initial notification. The same principle will hold good when a consideration is made by the Court. " 16. In the instant case, two norms will be relevant for adjudicating the abovesaid issue. The first norm is the one as per Clause 2 of Part III of the Scheme appended to Ext.R-2(a) G.O. dated 18.8.2021 which mandates that the selection and appointment process shall be done strictly observing the reservation norms applicable. The Second norm is the one as per Clause 5 of Part III of the Scheme appended to Ext.R-2(a) G.O., wherein it is stated that separate application will be invited to the post of Secretary, DTPC, in each district. After the last date of submission of applications and before the date of conduct of written examination, the Government found that both the abovesaid norms cannot be simultaneously implemented in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. After the last date of submission of applications and before the date of conduct of written examination, the Government found that both the abovesaid norms cannot be simultaneously implemented in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. This is because the selection was to the post of Secretary, DTPC in each of 14 districts, and the sanctioned post in each of the 14 districts is only one, and if reservation norms are to be applied in such a scenario, it might become illegal or rather impossible inasmuch as what is involved then would be a single post cadre, wherein the unit of appointment is district. In such a scenario, going by the well settled legal position, it may not be legally feasible to enforce community/vertical reservation norms. Even if it is assumed that the said reservation may be contemplated by arising vacancies, then the reservation turns might occur only in the next selection process, and all the 14 posts in the each of the 14 districts could be filled up only in OC turns in the present case. The issue as to whether vacancy based vertical reservation could be envisaged in a single post cadre is extremely doubtful. Hence, the Government was fully justified in concluding that simultaneous implementation of both norms is rather legally impossible in the present case. Further, the Government found that the aspect regarding imposition of reservation norms is a prime policy norm of the State, whereas the unit of appointment is only an incidental and ancillary aspect. It is taking into account these aspects, to ensure the effectuation of the prime norm regarding community reservation that the Government has amended the abovesaid procedure of making 'district' as the unit of appointment, by changing it to 'State' as the unit of appointment, as per the subsequent G.O. issued at Ext.R-2(b) dated 22.9.2021. 17. We are told that the norms regarding the unit of appointment as 'district' has not been mentioned in the selection notification at Ext.R-2(c) or in the detailed selection notification at Anx.B published in the official website well before the conduct of the written examination, and that the abovesaid change has been made out as per Ext.R-2(b). The abovesaid norm has been equally applicable to all the candidates who have applied. The abovesaid norm has been equally applicable to all the candidates who have applied. No candidate who was aspiring for community reservation has been denied the opportunity to apply inasmuch as, the selection notification issued on the basis of Ext.R-2(a) clearly contemplated community reservation. Faced with this difficulty, the respondents had only 2 options. One to cancel the selection notification and to issue a fresh notification in the light of Ext.R-2(b) norms, or to issue a corrigendum or erratum proceedings. Since, the abovesaid norms regarding the unit of appointment as 'district' have not been mentioned in the selection notification, and have been mentioned only in the G.O. at Ext.R-2(a), what was needed was only a corrigendum/erratum of said G.O. which has been issued as Ext.R-2(b) G.O. issued subsequently. Certainly, technically, there is change of norms. In substance, the change of norms has been made only to effectuate and implement the prime norm regarding community reservation. The second norm regarding unit of appointment as 'district' can be seen only as a incidental or subsidiary aspect. No candidate has been prejudiced by the issuance of Ext.R-2(b) norms inasmuch as, all the candidates who are aspiring for community reservation have not, in any manner, been barred from applying inasmuch as, Ext.R-2(a) made it clear about community reservation norms. The change of norm regarding the unit of appointment cannot be said to have caused any substantial prejudice to any of the candidates. Hence, in the facts of the case since, the corrigendum/erratum proceedings has been issued and made applicable to all the candidates concerned equally, we are not in a position to hold that the abovesaid dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the abovesaid decisions as in Zonal Manager, Bank of India v. Aarya K.Babu [ 2019 (3) KLT 802 = (2019) 8 SCC 587 ] could be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 18. Further, from the facts and materials on record, it appears that the marks scored in the written examination by the appellants herein are quite low and they never had any serious chance of getting selected. We are told that no other candidates have challenged the abovesaid selection process on this ground or any other ground. Hence, we feel that such a challenge at the instance of the present appellants need not be countenanced in any view of the matter. We are told that no other candidates have challenged the abovesaid selection process on this ground or any other ground. Hence, we feel that such a challenge at the instance of the present appellants need not be countenanced in any view of the matter. Hence, the primary contention based on the change of rules of the game midway cannot be countenanced by us in the facts and circumstances of this case for the abovesaid reasons, and we overrule the abovesaid contention of the counsel for the appellants. 19. The next contention is regarding the legality and correctness of the procedure adopted by the respondents for shortlisting. It appears that altogether 138 candidates have appeared for the written examination in pursuance of the above selection process, including the 2 appellants. It has been inter alia stated in para 2 on page 2 of Ext.R-2(d) G.O.(Rt.) No.325/2021/Tourism dated 16.10.2021 that about 50 candidates need alone be included in the shortlist in the present selection process. 20. The counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that nowhere in the selection notification or anywhere in the Government Orders produced before this Court, has it been stated that there could be a cut-off mark of 24.75 marks in the written examination for the purpose of shortlisting. Further, it is pointed out that Ext.P-3/Anx.F is the shortlist of 51 candidates in the present selection process whereby it is stated that the shortlist is prepared by including candidates in the cut off mark of 24.75 and above. It is thus urged that the shortlisting process on the basis of a 24.75 cut off mark is arbitrary and unreasonable, and has no rational nexus in the instant selection process. 21. As mentioned by us hereinabove, the norm for shortlisting mentioned in Ext.R-2(d) G.O. is that about 50 candidates need to be included. It is elementary and a well settled position of law that ordinarily, where the number of candidates who have applied for the selection process is quite large and it is not feasible to call very many candidates for the interview process, then a rational process for shortlisting could be adopted by the recruiting agency. In that regard it is also well settled that ordinarily, shortlist could be prepared on the basis of 3 to 5 times the number of vacancies. In that regard it is also well settled that ordinarily, shortlist could be prepared on the basis of 3 to 5 times the number of vacancies. In the instant case, the total number of vacancies is 14 and hence, shortlisting could be ordinarily be made by including about 70 candidates. The Government has approved as per Ext.R-2(d) the proposal of respondents 2 & 3 to include 50 candidates in the shortlist based on their performance in the written examination. Therefore, going by the number it cannot be said that there is any impropriety in limiting the size of shortlist as 50 candidates. However, in what manner they have arrived at number 50 is not very clear. 22. We have gone through the details of the marks secured by all the candidates in the written examination as well as the details of the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview after the process of shortlisting, etc. From the said details it is seen that, by including 50 candidates or so, based on their performance in the written examination, the respondents could secure sufficient number of candidates, both for filling up OC turns as well as the various backward classes reservation turns for the communities mentioned in Ext.R-2(d) viz Ezhava, Billava, Thiyya, Scheduled Caste, Muslim, Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian, Other Backward Classes etc. After perusal of records, we could see that the marks of 50th & 51st ranking candidates, based on their performance in the written examination, happened to be the same ie, 24.75 marks out of 100. So, it is not a cut off mark but, mark of the last ranking candidate in the short list. The Government has permitted to include both the candidates in the shortlist. From amongst the first 51 candidates as above, it is seen that about 9 candidates belong to Ezhava, Billava, Thiyya community, 1 to Muslim, 3 to Scheduled Caste, 2 to Other Backward Classes and 2 to Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian. Thus altogether, there are 17 candidates belonging to the reservation eligible communities mentioned in Ext.R-2(d) among the first 51 ranking candidates, based on the written examination. Thus altogether, there are 17 candidates belonging to the reservation eligible communities mentioned in Ext.R-2(d) among the first 51 ranking candidates, based on the written examination. Hence, judging from this aspect, it is seen that limiting the number to 50 or 51 in the shortlist is a rational process for limiting the field of choice of candidates to be called for interview based on the norm of 3 to 5 times the number of vacancies sought to be filled up. At the same time, in the above process, the respondents could also secure sufficient number of candidates for filling up the Open Competition turns as well as the reserved turns. Though the Government has not given any specific justification in Ext.R-2(d) G.O. dated 16.10.2021 or in their pleadings as to how they arrived at number 50 for shortlisting process, we see from the details of working out the selection process that the said aspect resulted in getting sufficient candidates as above in the field of choice for interview. 23. However, we also note that in Ext.R-2(d) it is stated by the Government that 50 candidates alone need be included in the shortlisting process, and if for any reason, candidates belonging to reservation eligible communities are not available in the said selection process, then special recruitment may be made for filling up such reserved turns. However, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the respondents have secured sufficient candidates for filling up both the open competition turns as well as the backward classes reservation turns mentioned in Ext.R-2(d). In view of abovesaid aspects, we would only hasten to add that it may be more better and prudent in future selection processes to ensure that the shortlisting process is done in such a manner so that sufficient number of candidates is available for filling up both the open competition turns as well as the various reserved turns instead of stipulating that only a fixed number of candidates alone would be called for the interview, so that the process is flexible to include sufficient candidates in the reservation eligibility turns as well, and for the purpose of avoiding special recruitment for filling the unfilled reserved turns. 24. 24. It has to be borne in mind that the selection process in the instant case is a contractual appointment and therefore, resorting to special recruitment etc would be more cumbersome and burdensome for the respondents. In that regard, the respondents, in future, may also keep in mind the procedure adopted by the PSC for preparation of supplementary list of reservation eligibility candidates whereby, in case sufficient number of reservation eligibility community candidates is not available in the main list of the shortlist therein, the supplementary list for various communities is prepared in such a manner by the PSC so that the candidates included in such supplementary list could be considered only for filling up the reserved turns and not for the open competition turns, etc. These aspects may not be very pertinent and relevant for the present selection process inasmuch as, sufficient number of candidates has been secured for both OC turns and BC turns as above. 25. Further, we also note from the marks obtained by all the 138 candidates in the written examination that marks of the written test obtained by the appellant in W.A.No.1541/2021 is 21 marks out of 100 and the marks obtained by the appellant in W.A.No.1544/2021 is 13.25 marks out of 100, and it appears that the appellant in W.A.No.1541/2021 is included at position No.75 and the appellant in W.A.No.1544/2021 is included in position No.113 going by the performance in the written examination. Further, we are told that the appellant in W.A.No.1544/2021 belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Hence, in the light of these aspects we see that the overall chances of getting selection for both the appellants are quite low going by the marks obtained by them, inasmuch as only 51 candidates have been included in the shortlist. Further, we see that the chances of appointment of the appellant in W.A.No.1544/2021 would have been brightened by making change of the unit of appointment as 'state' so that reservation norms could be made applicable and 2 turns have been set apart specifically for the Scheduled Caste community. For all these reasons, we are constrained to overrule the objections of the appellants raised against the shortlisting process. 26. Further, we are told that, based on the written examination, shortlist was prepared and interview was conducted. For all these reasons, we are constrained to overrule the objections of the appellants raised against the shortlisting process. 26. Further, we are told that, based on the written examination, shortlist was prepared and interview was conducted. The total weightage marks was taken as 100 marks, in which 60 weightage marks have been allotted for written test, and the rest 40 for interview process consisting of 25 marks for personal interview and 1o & 5 marks respectively, for the other parameters mentioned hereinabove, and based on that, the rank list was prepared and the first 7 OC candidates were given appointment in the 7 OC turn posts and all the community reservation turns were also duly filled up, solely on the basis of the rank obtained by them in the respective reservation community quotas concerned. In other words, we do not find any ground available in public law in favour of the appellants so as to interfere with the well considered verdict of the learned Single Judge in the instant case. 27. Before parting with this case, we note that no reservation turn has been provided for Scheduled Tribe community, even though a qualified Scheduled Tribe candidate was available. The respondents will consider the issue of providing reservation for Scheduled Tribe candidates in future selection and if so, it could also be provided that, in case Scheduled Caste candidate is not available to fill up a Scheduled Caste turn, then it could be allotted to an available Scheduled Tribe candidate and vice versa as envisaged in Rule 15(b) & (c) of KS & SSR Part II. For these reasons, the above Writ Appeals will stand dismissed.