JUDGMENT : A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. 1. “Can the Public Service Commission (PSC) prescribe a minimum qualifying mark for each compartment of a single examination after the examination and thereby eliminate candidates who failed to meet the required minimum in any one of the compartments?” is the question to be answered in these original petitions. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal answered against PSC. 2. The PSC issued a notification as per category No. 459/2016 on 30/12/2016 for the post of Lower Division Clerk (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) in Kasargode District. It is appropriate to refer to the events followed thereon in a chronological manner. 3. The chronology of events in O.P.(KAT).Nos.26/2024 and 553/2023 are summarised below: 30.12.2016 Notification as per category No. 459/2016 for the post of LDC (Kannada & Malayalam Knowing) in Kasargode District 22.10.2019 OMR Examination 03.10.2020 Descriptive Examination 25.02.2021 Decision No. 25 on prescribing minimum marks for each subject. 21.12.2021 Publication of Probability List PL No. 12/2021/DOB 01.11.2022 Order by Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal in OA(EKM) No. 86/2022 setting aside the probability list dated 21.12.21. 11.01.2023 Order of stay in OP(KAT)No. 8/2023 by this court against the Tribunal order in OA(EKM)No. 86/2022 18.04.2023 Cancellation of Probability List dated 21.12.21 on account of letter dated 08.02.2023 by Notification No. KGD III (3)247109/2019. 09.05.2023 Fresh Probability List issued by Notification No. PL No. 01/2023/DOB 20.09.2023 OP(KAT) No. 8/2023 was disposed of by this court for fresh consideration along with OA(EKM) No. 762/2023, which was pending before the tribunal at that time. OA(EKM) No. 762/2023 was filed challenging the fresh probability list. 07.11.2023 Judgment by the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in OA(EKM) No. 762/2023. 4. Similarly, PSC issued a notification as per Category No. 116/2017, for LDC (Tamil and Malayalam knowing) in Palakkad District. The chronology of events that followed in O.P.(KAT) Nos. OA(EKM) No. 762/2023 was filed challenging the fresh probability list. 07.11.2023 Judgment by the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in OA(EKM) No. 762/2023. 4. Similarly, PSC issued a notification as per Category No. 116/2017, for LDC (Tamil and Malayalam knowing) in Palakkad District. The chronology of events that followed in O.P.(KAT) Nos. 350/2024, 402/2024, 407/2024, 408/2024, 411/2024, 412/2024, 428/2024 and 432/2024 are tabulated below: CASE NUMBER OP(KAT) 350/24 OP(KAT) 402/24 OP(KAT) 407/24 OP(KAT) 408/24 OP(KAT) 411/24 OP(KAT) 412/24 OP(KAT) 428/24 OP(KAT) 432/24 Notification for Category No. 116/2017(A1), LD Clerk (Tamil and Malayalam knowing) in Palakkad District 30.05.2017 30.05.2017 30.05.2017 30.05.2017 30.05.2017 30.05.2017 30.05.2017 30.05.2017 Objective Test 05.10.2019 05.10.2019 05.10.2019 05.10.2019 05.10.2019 05.10.2019 05.10.2019 05.10.2019 Shortlist 20.08.2020 20.08.2020 20.08.2020 20.08.2020 20.08.2020 20.08.2020 20.08.2020 20.08.2020 Descriptive Test 03.10.2020 03.10.2020 03.10.2020 03.10.2020 03.10.2020 03.10.2020 03.10.2020 03.10.2020 Decision No. 2 of the commission to prescribe minimum marks for each subject in the ratio 20:40:40 07.12.2020 07.12.2020 07.12.2020 07.12.2020 07.12.2020 07.12.2020 07.12.2020 07.12.2020 Publication of Probability list 03.12.2021 03.12.2021 03.12.2021 03.12.2021 03.12.2021 03.12.2021 03.12.2021 03.12.2021 Publication of Ranked List 25.02.2022 25.02.2022 25.02.2022 25.02.2022 25.02.2022 25.02.2022 25.02.2022 25.02.2022 Date of issuance of Advice Memo 04.04.2022 0 4.04.2022 0 4.04.2022 0 4.04.2022 R R Respondent No.1 - 24.06.2022 espondent No.2 - 04.04.2022 espondent No.3 - 04.04.2022 nil 2 6.02.2022 0 4.04.2022 I ssue of Appointment Order 0 6.05.2022 2 1.04.2022 1 2.05.2022 0 6.05.2022 R Respondent No.1 - 27.07.2022 espondent Nos.2 & R3 12.05.2022 1 2.05.2022 3 0.03.2022 0 5.05.2022 J oining Date 0 9.02.2022 2 7.04.2022 2 5.05.2022 0 9.05.2022 R R Respondent No.1 - 05.08.2022 espondent No.2 - 21.05.2022 espondent No.3 - 17.05.2022 nil 0 1.04.2022 1 1.05.2022 Deletion of Entry from the Probability List 0 1.02.2023 01.02.2023 01.02.2023 01.02.2023 01.02.2023 01.02.2023 01.02.2023 01.02.2023 Deletion of Entry from Rank List 2 0.10.2023 20.10.2023 20.10.2023 20.10.2023 20.10.2023 20.10.2023 20.10.2023 20.10.2023 Issuance of show cause notice cancelling the advice 1 4.11.2023 0 7.07.2023 1 4.11.2023 1 4.11.2023 n il 0 7.07.2023 1 6.01.2023 1 4.11.2023 Reply/Objectio n to show cause notice 25.11.2023 Undated 27.11.2023 25.11.2023 nil 18.07.2023 25.01.2023 07.08.2023 01.12.2023 Order confirming Show Cause Notice nil 2 8.10.2023 n il nil nil 28.10.2023 12.01.2024 01.02.2024 Letter Intimating Cancellation of Advice nil n il 0 1.02.2024 01.02.2024 nil nil nil nil Date of common Order in OA(EKM) No. 222/2024 and connected cases challenging the revised rank list. 26.07.2024 2 6.07.2024 2 6.07.2024 26.07.2024 26.07.2024 26.07.2024 26.07.2024 26.07.2024 INITIAL DISPUTE 5..... (a) The written exam comprises of main topics consisting of three parts: Part-I General English; Part-II Regional Language Malayalam; Part-III Regional Language Kannada/Tamil as the case may be. Maximum Marks - 100 (No prescription of minimum marks referred in examination scheme or in question papers) (b) In O.A. (EKM) No. 86/2022 filed by the candidates Malathi V.P. and others for appointment to the post of LDC (Kannada Malayalam knowing) in Kasargode District, the Tribunal considered the question of the correctness of the decision of PSC prescribing minimum mark criteria without prior intimation to the candidates. The Tribunal found that such a prescription is arbitrary. This was challenged before this Court by PSC in O.P.(KAT). No. 8/2023. 6. Pending challenge before this Court, PSC cancelled the shortlist which was the subject matter of the challenge in O.A. No. 86/2022, because there was a mistake in the tabulation of marks. According to PSC, a mistake occurred in representing marks in each compartment. Instead of the 20:40:40 ratio, the mark sheet was tabulated at the ratio of 20:30:50. It is for this reason that the probability list which is the subject matter of the challenge in O.A.(EKM) No.86/2022 was withdrawn subsequent to the disposal of O.A.(EKM) No.86/2022. 7. The challenge against the judgment in O.A.(EKM) No.86/2022 was disposed of by this Court as per the judgment in O.P.(KAT). No. 8/2023 noting that the probability list referred to in O.A.No. 86/2022 was cancelled by PSC subsequently and remanded back the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration along with O.A.(EKM) No.762/2023, wherein the subsequent list was also challenged by some of the candidates. It is stated at the Bar that O.A.(EKM)No.86/2022 is still pending before the Tribunal, and O.A.(EKM) No.762/2023 alone has been disposed of. O.A.(EKM) No.762/2023 was disposed of by the Tribunal by relying on its own judgment passed earlier in O.A.(EKM) No. 86/2022. 8. We are not elaborating on the facts and date of events in this matter, as the question now survives whether PSC is justified in prescribing minimum marks in each compartment. Regarding the question on the mistake of tabulation of marks for each compartment, it may not have much impact in this case unless this Court upholds PSC’s action prescribing minimum marks for each compartment. THE PRESENT DISPUTE 9. Regarding the question on the mistake of tabulation of marks for each compartment, it may not have much impact in this case unless this Court upholds PSC’s action prescribing minimum marks for each compartment. THE PRESENT DISPUTE 9. After the disposal of O.A.(EKM) No.86/2022 by the Tribunal, challenges were made before the Tribunal regarding the probability list of Palakkad along with Kasargode. The preferential language required to be possessed by potential candidates in Palakkad is Tamil and Kasargode is Kannada. These challenges arose after the disposal of O.A.(EKM) No. 86/2022. The PSC withdrew the probability list which was challenged in O.A.(EKM) No. 86/2022. According to PSC, they committed an error in tabulating the marks. Instead of the 20:40:40 ratio, they tabulated and awarded marks on the ratio of 20:30:50. This exercise was carried on based on the PSC stand in O.A. (EKM) No. 251/2022 filed by one Robert Benny and others alleging erroneous evaluation. In the above case, PSC took the stand before the Tribunal that they committed a mistake. Tribunal recording submission of PSC disposed of O.A. (EKM) No. 251/2022 on 24.01.2023, permitting the PSC to expedite the rectification process within two months. Based on the above-alleged mistake, PSC reworked the list, which was challenged before the Tribunal by the candidates who have been advised by PSC and who have been appointed to the post of LDC, and also by some other candidates who were initially included in the probability list and later, their names were deleted from the probability list. Separate challenges were being made by candidates who were included in both lists of LDC in Palakkad and Kasargode. 10. The present challenge is made on the following grounds. (i) On the competency of PSC to prescribe minimum mark criteria to exclude candidates after the written exam. (ii) On the mistake in tabulation of marks given to different compartments of the examination paper. 11. The second question is dependent on the first question we need to answer. If we uphold the order of the Tribunal, the question on the second point becomes redundant as much as PSC will have to prepare a probability list based on the aggregate marks in the examination. 11. The second question is dependent on the first question we need to answer. If we uphold the order of the Tribunal, the question on the second point becomes redundant as much as PSC will have to prepare a probability list based on the aggregate marks in the examination. The Tribunal in O.A.(EKM) 762/2023 upheld the challenge regarding the prescription of minimum marks and ordered that PSC shall publish a fresh probability list without insisting on any separate minimum marks for Part II and Part III or an aggregate minimum for all the parts of the examination. The Tribunal in O.A(EKM) 222/2024 and connected cases, by setting aside the revised rank list, directed the candidates who have been advised by PSC and who have been appointed to the post of LDC to continue in service. It is challenging these orders; PSC and candidates who are affected by the outcome of the orders of the Tribunal filed these original petitions. PSC PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING EXAM 12. The Rules of Procedure of the Kerala Public Service Commission empower the PSC to hold a written examination/practical test for recruitment to a service or post. The relevant portion of Rule 4 is as follows: “4. Where a written examination and/or a practical test is conducted by the Commission for recruitment to a service or post, the Commission shall- (i) Announce: (a) the qualifications required of the candidates for the examination (b) the conditions of admission to the examination including the fees (c) the subjects, Scheme or syllabus of the examination, and (d) the number of vacancies to be filled from among the candidates for the examination.” 13. In Rule 11, the Commission is also empowered to decide in respect of all selections, as referred to below: “11. 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.” SUBMISSIONS 14. (v) any other matter incidental to the selection.” SUBMISSIONS 14. According to the PSC, the purpose of the test is to ascertain the proficiency of a candidate in Malayalam and Kannada/Tamil (referred to as specialised languages). Therefore, question papers are set in such a manner to ascertain proficiency in Malayalam and specialised languages. If the minimum mark is not prescribed, the very purpose of the prescription of working knowledge in a special subject will be defeated. According to PSC, in Kasargode and Palakkad, Officers working in the lowest rung will have to deal with people who are not conversant in Malayalam, and they prefer to speak Tamil in Palakkad and Kannada in Kasargode. It is stated by PSC that in the notification itself, it is stipulated that the candidates should possess working knowledge in both Malayalam and Kannada/Tamil. Therefore, without prescribing minimum marks, candidates who do not possess special knowledge either in Tamil or Kannada cannot be eliminated. It is argued by the learned Standing Counsel for PSC that all the candidates understood the scheme of the exam, and therefore, there is no arbitrariness in prescribing the minimum marks. The learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in P.V. Prakasini v. KPSC and Others, 1993 KHC 209 to argue their point that PSC has the power to correct mistakes committed by itself. This argument was in the background of the fact that there is a mistake in the tabulation, instead of the ratio of 20:40:40, PSC tabulated marks on the 20:30:50 ratio. The learned Standing Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in Swaroop K. M. v. State of Travancore, Elanhippalam and Another [ 2018 (2) KHC 289 ] to substantiate that PSC cannot appoint candidates who cannot fulfil eligibility norms. 15. The counsels who support the stand of the PSC placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar and Others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706) , particularly paragraph 32 of the judgment, which reads thus: “32. The respondents have also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of K. Manjusree (supra). However, in our considered view, the facts of the aforesaid decision are quite different from the present case. The respondents have also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of K. Manjusree (supra). However, in our considered view, the facts of the aforesaid decision are quite different from the present case. A change was introduced for the first time after the entire process was over, based on the decision made by the Full Court qua the cut off. Secondly, it is not as if the private respondents were nonsuited from participating in the recruitment process. The principle governing changing the rules of game would not have any application when the change is with respect to the selection process but not the qualification or eligibility. In other words, after the advertisement is made followed by an application by a candidate with further progress, a rule cannot be brought in, disqualifying him to participate in the selection process. It is only in such cases, the principle aforesaid will have an application or else it will hamper the power of the employer to recruit a person suitable for a job.” 16. Relying on the above paragraph, the learned counsels would argue that PSC applied the correct rule of the selection process to further the very objective of the written test, and it can in no way prejudice any candidate who will be eliminated due to lack of proficiency in the particular subject. 17. The learned counsel opposing PSC’s suggestions relied on a large number of judgments, including P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [ (1984) 2 SCC 141 ]; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [ (1985) 3 SCC 721 ]; Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646]; Dr. 17. The learned counsel opposing PSC’s suggestions relied on a large number of judgments, including P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [ (1984) 2 SCC 141 ]; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [ (1985) 3 SCC 721 ]; Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646]; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [ (1995) 6 SCC 1 ]; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others [ (2001) 10 SCC 51 ]; State of Punjab and Others v. Manjith Singh and Others [ (2003) 11 SCC 559 ]; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [(2011) 12 SCC 85]; Nutan Kumari v. B. R. A. Bihar University [2023 KHC 6969]; Ankita Thakur v. H. P. Staff Selection Commission [2023 KHC 6988] ; Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 332] ; Sushil Kumar Pandey and Others v. High Court of Jharkhand and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 117]; Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [ AIR 2024 SC 1933 ]; Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 2698] ; Ravidas M. and Another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [ 2009 (2) KHC 10 (FB)]; Geethu K.C. (Dr.) v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Tvm. [2024 (4) KHC 586]; and argued that in any examination, candidates must know about the outcome of the examination, and in anticipation to prepare for the examination, they should know the criteria fixed for elimination or inclusion. It is pointed out that there is no minimum mark prescribed for Part I English, and therefore, the candidates could have very well devoted time to Part II and Part III more competitively to secure high marks. It is submitted that in the absence of a prescription of minimum marks, in the notification or the scheme of examination or in the question paper, any change made thereafter on evaluation criteria is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsels also pointed out that many of the candidates have already been advised by the PSC and have been appointed, and the present attempt of the PSC to cancel the advice is after one year of the date of advice. The learned counsels also pointed out that many of the candidates have already been advised by the PSC and have been appointed, and the present attempt of the PSC to cancel the advice is after one year of the date of advice. Therefore, it is hit by the proviso to Rule 3(c), Part II of KS&SSR, 1958. The proviso bars PSC from terminating the service of candidates within one year from the date of such advice. DISCUSSIONS 18. There cannot be much doubt as to the power of PSC in prescribing minimum marks for any compartmentalized examination. The written examination is one of the modes of selection criteria to assess the competence, proficiency and merit of the candidates. If an exam is conducted to assess the performance of a candidate vis- a-vis different compartments of the examination, PSC should fix minimum and maximum marks for the examination in each compartment in advance. The competition is among eligible candidates in a race to reach the top for the limited vacancies. They should have certainty about the exam and the criteria adopted to assess them in such competition. It is the knowledge of the candidates as to the criteria of such a competitive exam that makes it competitive and not by any fortuitous circumstances. In a recent judgment by this Court in Divya K.S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others ( 2025 KHC 147 ), the court has opined on the exercise of power as follows: “Possessing authority and exercising it are two distinct concepts and should not be conflated. The power to enforce compulsory government service is different from the way that power is wielded. While the authority may be lawful, its exercise is not automatically justified. Confusing the existence of power with its manner of execution can create misconceptions about the nature of authority and its relationship with those governed by it. All power must be exercised responsibly, with accountability, and through thoughtful consideration and application of mind. It must also respect the rights of others and adhere to a fair and transparent procedure. Consequently, the exercise of such power is open to challenge. Exercise of such power in a context becomes arbitrary if such exercise results in an unanticipated outcome of pre-established relations on defined norms.” 19. It must also respect the rights of others and adhere to a fair and transparent procedure. Consequently, the exercise of such power is open to challenge. Exercise of such power in a context becomes arbitrary if such exercise results in an unanticipated outcome of pre-established relations on defined norms.” 19. On a glance at the question paper produced before this Court, it is not discernible whether an examination was conducted in a compartmentalized manner. There are 10 questions - PSC would claim that two questions represent Part I - English and four questions each represent Malayalam and specialised language. Each question carries 10 marks, totalling 100 marks. No man with a little prudence would be in a position to make sure that the examination was conducted on a compartmentalized basis with minimum and maximum marks for each compartment. Candidates have the right to know the criteria for elimination and inclusion in an examination; if no criteria are mentioned, it has to be assumed that the candidates who scored the highest marks will have to be included in the merit list in accordance with the marks secured. Apparently in this case PSC or the evaluator could not make out any prescription of minimum marks while evaluating or tabulating marks. It is after complaints and litigations, that PSC woke up from the slumber to rectify their own mistake of not prescribing minimum or maximum marks for each compartment of the exam. The PSC cannot redo the exercise at the cost of the candidates. At best, PSC could have cancelled the examination in light of the serious flaw they detected subsequently. But, by the passage of time, it became irredeemable. 20. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sivananda C. T. v. High Court of Kerala ( 2023 (5) KHC 347 ) deprecated the practice of prescribing cut-off marks for viva voce examination after the conduct of viva voce examination for selection to the post of District Judge. Again in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2024 KHC Online 6611), the Apex Court reiterated that eligibility criteria notified cannot be changed at the midway of the recruitment process. 21. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel who opposed the prayers made by the PSC establish the principle that the PSC cannot prescribe the criteria for evaluation of the written examination after the examination is over. 21. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel who opposed the prayers made by the PSC establish the principle that the PSC cannot prescribe the criteria for evaluation of the written examination after the examination is over. The judgment in Karunesh Kumar’s case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel does not hold good in this matter. Karunesh Kumar’s case was with regard to the application and modification of relevant rules in the selection process. However, the issue at hand is not about the application of any rules but in fact, related to non-disclosure of the assessment criteria before the written examination. This omission directly impacts the level playing field of the candidates who participated in the examination. 22. The written examination plays a crucial role in assessing candidates’ performance. Establishing clear evaluation criteria in advance is essential in maintaining the integrity of the examination process. Predefined standards also enhance candidates’ confidence, as they are aware of the expectations set for them. The PSC must take this responsibility seriously. 23. Each candidate prepares for the examination with the expectation that they will be evaluated according to the pre- established pattern. The PSC cannot arbitrarily disregard these expectations, especially after issuing an advice memo. Such lapses in the examination process are unacceptable. We trust that the PSC will take necessary measures to prevent such errors in the future. In the result: All the original petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.