JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The applicants before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.(EKM)Nos.1717/2016, 1853/2016, 342/2017, 239/2020 and 407/2020 are the petitioners before us, aggrieved by the common order dated 21.4.2021 of the Tribunal in the said O.A's. The petitioners were all Upper Division Clerks [UD Clerks]/Head Clerks working at various State Goods and Service Tax Offices, and they were aggrieved by the appointments contemplated to the post of Assistant State Tax Officer [ASTO] in the quota earmarked for by-transfer appointments from among qualified Stenographers and UD Typists. 2. As per the Special Rules in force, appointments to the post of ASTO were to be effected by direct recruitment and by transfer from among (i) UD Clerks and Head Clerks, (ii) Stenographers/Confidential Assistants and (iii) UD Typists in the ratio 30:1:1. It is stated by the petitioners that direct recruitment, as a method of recruitment for the post, was done away with during the year 1992 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1988, and that, at present, the recruitment to the post is only through by-transfer route from among the three streams mentioned above. While there is some ambiguity with regard to whether or not the direct recruitment scheme was done away with, the said issue need not engage our attention since it does not arise for consideration in the instant cases. What is to be noted, however, is that the qualification requirements for by-transfer recruitment to the post of ASTO is different for the different streams of recruitment. Accordingly, while in the case of the first stream, namely, UD Clerks and Head Clerks, the qualification requirement stipulates (i) a pass in SSLC Standard together with (ii) a pass in Account Test (Lower) – 4 papers and (iii) a pass in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Test -Parts I, II and III, for those in the second and third streams, namely, for Stenographers/Confidential Assistants and UD Typists respectively, the qualification requirements are that they should possess (i) a pass in SSLC Standard; (ii) a pass in Account Test (Lower) – 4 papers; (iii) a pass in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Test -Parts I, II and III; (iv) a pass in the test conducted for the purpose by the Public Service Commission [PSC] in drafting, precis writing etc. and (v) should have worked as UD Clerk at least for a period of one year satisfactorily. 3. and (v) should have worked as UD Clerk at least for a period of one year satisfactorily. 3. It would appear that in an appeal filed by a group of Confidential Assistants/UD Typists claiming appointment as ASTO, the Government, vide its order dated 27.10.2016, clarified that (i) the ratio of 30:1:1 is to be applied for the total cadre strength and not on the number of vacancies; (ii) any cross appointment made in excess of the quota in the absence of eligible hands in any other channel can be considered only as a stop-gap arrangement; (iii) appointees in excess of their quota cannot claim seniority based on such appointments; (iv) no one can claim seniority in the vacancies that arose for them in the respective quota; and (v) qualified Confidential Assistants/UD Typists must be posted as UD Clerks for gaining work experience and they should be appointed by transfer as ASTO in their proportionate quota. The said order of the Government was impugned in the O.A's preferred by Head Clerks/UD Clerks mainly relying on the provisions of Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules [KS & SSR]. The contention was essentially that the ratio of 30:1:1 had to be applied to vacancies that arose in the post of ASTO and not to the cadre strength. The further challenge in the O.A's was with regard to the manner in which the PSC had held the eligibility test for considering the promotion of Stenographers/Confidential Assistants and UD Typists. It was contended that inasmuch as the Special Rules mandate inter alia that a test had to be conducted by the PSC in drafting, precis writing etc., the obligation of the PSC was to conduct a descriptive test and not an objective OMR test as was done by the PSC in the instant case. The applicants also contended that while the UD Typists were entitled to seek by transfer appointment to the post of ASTO, the senior grade and selection grade UD Typists could not be treated as UD Typists for the purposes of inclusion in the feeder category to the post of ASTO. 4. The applicants also contended that while the UD Typists were entitled to seek by transfer appointment to the post of ASTO, the senior grade and selection grade UD Typists could not be treated as UD Typists for the purposes of inclusion in the feeder category to the post of ASTO. 4. The Tribunal, in the order impugned in these petitions, found that the ratio of 30:1:1 that had to be applied in the case of by-transfer mode of recruitment to the post of ASTO, had to be applied to the cadre strength and not to the vacancies that arose from time to time in the post of ASTO. The Tribunal found no reason as to why the principles governing Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II KS & SSR should not be followed even in a case where the appointment by transfer was from three different streams, as opposed to different methods of recruitment, in a prescribed ratio. The Government order dated 27.10.2016 that clarified the said position was therefore found to be legally correct by the Tribunal and not liable to be interfered with. As regards the legality of the eligibility test conducted by the PSC for persons falling under streams (ii) and (iii), the Tribunal found that inasmuch as the PSC was entrusted with the task of conducting a test, it was for the PSC to decide the manner in which the test was to be conducted. The Tribunal also found force in the contention of the learned counsel for the PSC that after the computerisation of the PSC, OMR tests had been regularly conducted, and there was therefore no merit in the contention that the ability of the candidates in drafting or precis writing cannot be assessed through an OMR test. The contention of the applicants that the PSC was bound to conduct a descriptive test was rejected on the finding that the Special Rules did not expressly require a descriptive examination to be conducted. The Tribunal also noted that the OMR test had been conducted in 2013 for the same post, and there had been no objections on that occasion from any quarters. The Tribunal also noted that the OMR test had been conducted in 2013 for the same post, and there had been no objections on that occasion from any quarters. As regards the entitlement of senior and selection grade Confidential Assistants/UD Typists, to seek appointment as ASTO through the by-transfer route in the quota earmarked for them, the Tribunal found that senior and selection grades are only grade promotions, and did not take away from the fact that the incumbent in question continued to be in the cadre of Confidential Assistant or UD Typist as the case may be. On the issue of locus standi of the applicants to approach the Tribunal, questioning the legality of consideration of persons from a different stream for by-transfer appointment to the post of ASTO in the quota earmarked for them, an issue that was raised by the respondents before the Tribunal, the Tribunal felt that there was considerable force in the said contention raised on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the O.A.'s. 5. Before us, it is the submission of Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., Sri.P.Nandakumar and Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the ratio 30:1:1 that is prescribed in relation to the feeder categories for the purposes of by-transfer appointment to the post of ASTO is one that has to be applied to the vacancies arising in the post of ASTO and not to the cadre strength of ASTO. A reference is made to the provisions of Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II KS & SSR to contend that the principle of applying the prescribed ratio to the cadre strength of promotion posts is one that arises in a situation where there are different methods of recruitment to the promotion post. It is pointed out that, in the instant case, there was only one method of recruitment, namely, through the by-transfer route, albeit from three different streams. Reliance is placed on the decision in Ravindran K. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others -[ 2008 (3) KHC 864 ] to substantiate the said contention. It is pointed out that, in the instant case, there was only one method of recruitment, namely, through the by-transfer route, albeit from three different streams. Reliance is placed on the decision in Ravindran K. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others -[ 2008 (3) KHC 864 ] to substantiate the said contention. As regards the legality of the eligibility test conducted by the PSC, it is pointed out that when the Special Rules clearly mandate inter alia that Stenographers/Confidential Assistants and UD Typists should have passed “the test conducted for the purpose by the PSC in drafting, precis writing etc.”, the PSC was necessarily obliged to conduct a test in drafting/precise writing, which could only have been by way of a descriptive test. It is specifically contended that the drafting and precis writing skills cannot be assessed through an objective type test, and that a mere knowledge of grammar and construction of sentences cannot indicate the proficiency of the candidate in drafting and precis writing. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of J & K and Others – [ (2004) 6 SCC 786 ], Udayan v. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. -[ 2011 (3) KLT 952 (F.B.)] and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Others – [ (2003) 2 SCC 111 ] to support the said contention. It is further contended that if the test conducted by the PSC in the instant case is seen as contrary to the requirements of the Special Rules, then the candidates from the particular stream cannot be seen as qualified for the purposes of promotion, and consequently, the vacancies earmarked in the said quota have to be opened up for being filled by the candidates from the other streams on the assumption that the quota rule had broken down and was incapable of being operated for want of qualified hands. The petitioners also contend that at any rate, senior grade and selection grade Stenographers/Confidential Assistants and UD Typists had to be seen as separate posts for the purposes of the Special Rules and they could not be considered as included in the cadre of Stenographers/Confidential Assistants and UD Typists. The petitioners also contend that at any rate, senior grade and selection grade Stenographers/Confidential Assistants and UD Typists had to be seen as separate posts for the purposes of the Special Rules and they could not be considered as included in the cadre of Stenographers/Confidential Assistants and UD Typists. The objection with regard to locus standi is sought to be overcome by contending that the petitioners were persons who would benefit from a finding regarding incapability of operating the quota for want of qualified hands and hence they cannot be said to be persons without any legal right/interest in the matter. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Prem Singh and Others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Others – [ (1996) 4 SCC 319 ] and Dr. Meera Massey (Mrs) and Others v. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra and Others – [ (1998) 3 SCC 88 ] to fortify the said contention. 6. Per contra, Sri.U.Balagangadharan, Smt.I.Sheela Devi, Sri.M.Sasindran, Sri.Raju Sebastian Vadakkekkara, Sri.K.M.Firoz and Sri.T.G.Sunil, the learned counsel for the party respondents, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Standing counsel for the PSC as also Sri.Unnikrishna Kaimal, the learned senior Government Pleader for the official respondents of the State would support the findings of the Tribunal in the order impugned in these O.P(KAT)s, and pray for a dismissal of the O.P(KAT)s. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, we find that, for the reasons that are mentioned herein below, these petitions must fail. While it may be a fact that Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II KS & SSR uses the phrase “different methods of recruitment”, we are unable to see why the principle that informs the said provision cannot be applied even in a case where there are different streams of persons in the feeder category, who can aspire for appointment to a higher post albeit through the same method of recruitment. The express provisions of Note (3) Rule 5 of Part II KS & SSR, no doubt, deal only with the situation where there are candidates applying through different methods of recruitment for a particular post. The clarification offered by the Rule is essentially with regard to the mode of application of a prescribed ratio while filling up vacancies in the higher post when there are different categories of qualified persons in the feeder category to that post. The clarification offered by the Rule is essentially with regard to the mode of application of a prescribed ratio while filling up vacancies in the higher post when there are different categories of qualified persons in the feeder category to that post. The existence of different categories of qualified persons in the feeder category can arise not only when there are different methods of recruitment but also in cases where there is only one method of recruitment contemplated but from different sources of qualified persons. We are therefore in agreement with the finding of the learned Tribunal on this aspect. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by a learned Single Judge in Ravindran K. (supra), relied upon by the petitioners, which suggests that Note (3) to Rule 5 of Part II KS & SSR would apply only when a ratio or percentage is fixed for different methods of recruitment/appointment to a post. We also note that the said judgment has since been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal [judgment dated 30.9.2008 in W.A.No.1755/2008] albeit on a different aspect. 8. We are also in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal on the aspect of eligibility of the senior grade and selection grade Stenographers/Confidential Assistants and UD Typists for consideration of their candidature for promotion to the post of ASTO in the quotas earmarked for them. A grade promotion, which is ordinarily granted to ameliorate the difficulties faced by an employee on account of his/her stagnation in a post does not result in an exclusion of the candidate from the cadre to which the post belongs. The mere conferring of a senior or selection grade, therefore, does not take away from the fact that the incumbents in question continue to remain as Stenographers/Confidential Assistants or UD Typists, as the case may be, for the purposes of the Special Rules. 9. On the aspect of legality of the eligibility test conducted by the PSC, which is the main point that is urged by the petitioners in these petitions, we find force in the submissions of the learned Standing counsel for the PSC that it is not correct to say that an assessment of the drafting and precis writing skills cannot be done through an objective type test as was done in the instant case. A reading of the Special Rules clearly indicates that the requirement is only that the candidate pass the test conducted by the PSC for assessing his/her skills in drafting, precis writing etc. In other words, in the absence of any specific mention of a descriptive test, any test conducted for the purposes of assessing the drafting and precis writing skills of a candidate would satisfy the requirement of the Rules. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel to urge to the contrary, are clearly distinguishable. Thus, so long as the PSC does not deviate from the requirement of the Special Rules, it has to be seen as having a wide discretion in deciding the manner in which the test would be conducted. We are told that in recent times, the PSC has been holding only objective type tests, and this is more so because, admittedly, on a previous occasion when a descriptive test was conducted in connection with recruitment to the post of ASTO, it was found that there was no person who qualified for the same. The mode of conducting the test was therefore changed in 2013, to make it of an objective type, and it is the same methodology that was followed even in the instant case. Further, even assuming that the petitioners have a case that the objective test did not serve its purpose of ascertaining the drafting and precis writing skills of the candidate in question, the petitioners have not brought on record any material, such as the question papers that were set by the PSC in that regard either in 2013 or later, for the purposes of demonstrating the alleged irregularity. As for the PSC itself, we are told that the general practice is not to keep question papers beyond six months from the date of the examination in question. In the absence of any material to suggest so, we cannot accept the contentions of the petitioners as regards irregularity in the conduct of the test, more so when they are not persons who took the test, and the ones that did never complained. Finding as we have that the objective type test satisfied the requirements of the Special Rules, we must also hold that the candidates who passed the test, both in 2013 and 2015, cannot be said to be unqualified for the purposes of the Special Rules. Finding as we have that the objective type test satisfied the requirements of the Special Rules, we must also hold that the candidates who passed the test, both in 2013 and 2015, cannot be said to be unqualified for the purposes of the Special Rules. It follows as a consequence that there did not arise a situation where there were no qualified candidates for appointment as ASTO under the quotas earmarked for by-transfer appointment of Stenographers/Confidential Assistants and UD Typists. This, in turn, would mean that the quota rule cannot be seen as broken down, and the petitioners, who fell under a different quota, cannot be seen as having the locus standi to maintain the O.P.(KAT)'s. In the light of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal impugned in these O.P. (KAT)'s. The O.P.(KAT)'s therefore fail, and are accordingly dismissed.