Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Aparna S J vs The Secretary Department Of Posts ... on 9 October, 2023
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00358/2018
Monday, this the 9th day of October, 2023
CO RAM :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. V. Eapen, Administrative Member
Aparna S.J, age 22 years,
D/o Sreekumar C.N.,
Panavoorvila Veedu,
Chingeli, Pulippara P.O.,
Kadakkal,
Kollam District,
Kerala-691 536 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. C.R. Suresh Kumar & Mr. K.P. Omanakuttan)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi. PIN-110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General (Recruitment),
Kerala Circle Trivandrum,
Kerala, PIN-695 033. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. N. Anilkumar, SPC,)
OA No.180/00358/2018
-2-
This Original Application having been heard on 26.09.2023, the
Tribunal on 09.10.2023 delivered the following :
ORDER
Mr. K.V. Eapen, Administrative Member The applicant in this OA is a candidate for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS), for which he had applied consequent to the notification for recruitment to the post of GDS in Kerala Circle vide No.RECTT/50- 1/DLG/2016-17. A copy of the notification has been produced at Annexure A-1. As per the notification, the educational qualification of the candidate is to be 10th Standard from a State/Central approved Boards by the respective State Govt./Central Govt. It has been also indicated at para B of the notification that no weightage would be given for possessing qualification(s) higher than the mandatory educational qualification. It is also indicated that candidates who have passed the 10 th Standard examination in the first attempt will be treated as more meritorious as against those who have passed compartmentally. Further, it is required that the candidate should have computer knowledge and will have to furnish a basic computer training certificate from a recognized Computer Training Institute of atleast 60 days duration. It is also OA No.180/00358/2018 -3- provided that a candidate's need to produce a basic computer training certificate shall be relaxable in cases where he/she has studied computers as a subject in Class X or Class XII or in a higher qualification, provided the candidate submits a certificate of Class X or Class XII or higher educational qualification to prove he/she has studied computer as a subject. Most crucially, the selection criteria at paragraph 'M' indicates as follows:-
(1) Selection will be made as per the automatic generated merit list as per the rules based on the candidates online submitted applications.
(2) No weightage will be given for higher educational qualification. Only marks obtained in 10 th standard of approved Boards aggregated to percentage to the accuracy of 4 decimals will be the criteria for finalizing the selection. Passing of all the subjects as per the respective approved board norms is mandatory for taking candidate into account for calculating the merit.
It was also provided that the SSLC(Class 10) marks memo/certificate should be mandatorily uploaded in .jpg/.jpeg format with permitted files size of 200kb, not exceeding A4 size.
2. The applicant had applied online for the post. She had shown her preferences in the application for 5 offices for consideration of her candidature in the following order:-
OA No.180/00358/2018 -4- (1) MG College B.O. (2) Thalachira B.O. (3) Irumpanangadu B.O (4) Kadakkal S.O (5) Valavupacha B.O. It may be noted that the first of the above places falls within the Trivandrum North Postal Division, Thiruvananthapuram, GPO, whereas the places at 2 to 5 fall within Quilon/ Kottarakara Head Office. Her application was accepted online as per Annexure A-2 application form.
Annexure A-2 form indicates that under the details regarding marks obtained, the applicant had shown that she had passed SSLC with A-1 grade in all subjects obtained. It also indicates that she obtained a total marks of 855 (merit included subjects only) out of total subject marks of 900 (merit included subjects only). However, the applicant submits in the OA that she had passed the SSLC (Class 10) examination conducted by Government of Kerala in March 2011. The mark sheet obtained by her with register no.164334 shows that she had scored 619 marks against the maximum of 640. The mark sheet has been produced at Annexure A-3. She submits that this mark sheet proves that the percentage obtained by her is 96.7187 (upto 4 decimals) as mentioned in the selection criteria.
OA No.180/00358/2018 -5-
3. It is submitted by the applicant that the 2 nd respondent Chief Post Master General (Recruitment) Kerala Circle, Trivandrum had published the results of the selection on the official website. The applicant's name was not reflected against any of the five offices, for which she had given preference (which are serially numbered as 1091, 1020, 991, 995 and 986 respectively). The applicant submits that the candidate selected against 1091 MG College B.O (her 1st preference) was one Sreedevi V.S. who had scored 96.5278. In all the other offices that she had given preference to, the candidates selected had a percentage scored of 95. It is submitted that the results which have been produced, therefore, clearly reveal that all the selected candidates had lesser marks scored than the applicant in the mandatory Class 10 examination since she had scored 96.7187 marks as per Annexure A-3. She then made a representation on 05.04.2018 to the 2nd respondent but was verbally informed that all the selected candidates had already been intimated by way of messages to their mobile phone numbers and that nothing more was possible. A copy of the representation dated 05.04.2018 has been produced at Annexure A-5. It is the contention of the applicant that the Annexure A-2 online application form has shown an improper mark against her candidature which has no relevance to the actual marks she had scored as per OA No.180/00358/2018 -6- Annexure A-3. Further, the respondents have discriminated against her to favour someone else. She is the most eligible candidate for her 1 st preference at MG College B.O., as can be seen by her marks.
4. The applicant seeks reliefs as follows:-
1. To declare that Annexure A4 result is illegal, improper and arbitrary, hence only to be quashed.
2. To declare that, the applicant is entitled to be posted against the 1st preference given by her in Annexure A2 or
3. To declare that the applicant is entitled to be posted against any other preference in the event of any unforseen difficulty posting her to the 1st preference
4. Such other orders which are proper to the Hon'ble Tribunal in the circumstances according to this case.
5. The respondents filed two reply statements. In the first statement dated 05.06.2018, they pointed out that the selection criteria, as specifically mentioned in Annexure A-1 notification, had stated that the selection would be made on the basis of SSLC marks as per the automatically generated merit list by the software. In this connection they submit that the Board of Examinations of various States, including Kerala State and CBSE, are awarding 'grades' to the candidates instead of 'marks'. The details of grades and range of marks are as follows:- CBSE is awarding A1, A2, B1,B2 etc. and the Kerala State Board is awarding OA No.180/00358/2018 -7- A+, A, B+, B, C+, C etc. It is submitted that here A1= A+, A2=A, B1=B+, B2=B etc. As selection to the GDS posts is based on the marks secured in the matriculation and equivalent examinations, a criterion for equivalence between the grading system and the marks system had been devised by the Postal Directorate. This was as per the Directorate letter dated 08.01.2014, a copy of which has been produced at Annexure R-1.
As per this letter, whenever there are applicants for GDS posts, who either possess marks or grades, the method of arriving at the total marks obtained in each of the two cases will be as follows:-
(a) For applicants with 'marks', the method will remain the same i.e. their total marks will be worked out by taking into account the marks obtained in the compulsory and elective/optional subjects (other than extra subjects, if any)
(b) For candidates having grades subject-wise, marks will be arrived at in each subject (compulsory and elective subjects but not extra subjects), by applying the multiplying factor of 9.5 in the following manner:-
Grade Grade Point Multiplication factor
A1 10 9.5
A2 9 9.5
B1 8 9.5
B2 7 9.5
C1 6 9.5
C2 5 9.5
D 4 9.5
OA No.180/00358/2018
-8-
(c) Where Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) is also provided, the marks will be arrived at by multiplying the CGPA by 9.5. Where individual grades in each subject as well as CGPA is given, the higher of the two marks will be taken. Where two or more candidates have equal marks, the candidate having the higher age (older candidate) will be selected.
6. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant had applied on the GDS Online portal, as per the details which have been given by her in the OA. Further, she had uploaded the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) of General Education Department, Government of Kerala bearing Registration No.164334. A copy of the certificate uploaded by the applicant has been produced by the respondents at Annexure R-2. As per this certificate uploaded by the applicant in the website, she had secured A Plus (A+) Grade in ten subjects, including in Information Technology which is not included for the totalling. As is evident from Annexure A-2 produced by the applicant, the equivalent marks awarded in respect of the Grades secured by the applicant was automatically converted as 855 out of 900 marks. All these details were confirmed and declared to be correct by the applicant before submission of her application. Further, it was submitted in the first reply statement OA No.180/00358/2018 -9- dated 05.06.2018 that the applicant had not uploaded the mark list produced by her at Annexure A-3 in the OA. It is submitted by the respondents in this reply statement that had the applicant entered these marks along with the certificate while uploading the mark list her percentage would have been reckoned as 96.7187 by the system. In the absence of correct information, based on the mark list (SSLC certificate) uploaded by the applicant herself, the percentage of marks secured by the applicant was generated as 95% only. Accordingly, her ranking for the various posts that she had applied for was as follows:-
Post Details Option Total Rank Result remarks
marks
GDSBPM MG College 1 95 131 Not selected due to less
BO marks/merit order of age
/gender/caste
GDSBPM, Thalachira 2 95 76 Not selected due to less
BO marks/merit order of age
/gender/caste
GDSBPM, 3 95 78 Not selected due to less
Irumpanangadu BO marks/merit order of age
/gender/caste
GDSMD, Kadakkal SO 4 95 63 Not selected due to less
marks/merit order of age
/gender/caste
GDSMD, Valavupacha 5 95 4 Selected for the Panel of 5
BO for post of GDSMD,
Valavupacha BO
7. The respondents submit that it had been categorically mentioned in OA No.180/00358/2018 -10- the A-1 notification that selection will be made on the basis of SSLC marks as per the automatically generated merit list by the software. It is further submitted by them that the Board of Examinations of various States including Kerala and CBSE are awarding 'grades' to the candidates instead of 'marks'. As selection to the GDS posts is based on the marks secured in the matriculation and equivalent examination, a criterion for equivalence between the grading system and the marks system had been devised by the Postal Directorate vide Annexure R-1 as per the criteria brought out earlier. In paragraph 8 of the first reply statement, the respondents have reiterated that the Annexure A-3 mark list was not uploaded by the applicant while submitting her application online. It is submitted in the said paragraph 'at the risk of repetition' that as per Annexure A-2 produced by the applicant herself, the equivalent marks awarded in respect of the grades secured by the applicant were 855 out of 900 marks. Had the applicant entered the 'correct' marks along with the certificate while uploading the mark list, her percentage would have been reckoned as 96.7187 by the system. In the absence of this correct information, based on the mark list uploaded by the applicant herself, the percentage of marks secured by the applicant was generated as 95% only.
OA No.180/00358/2018 -11-
8. Interestingly, it is to be noted that the above contention of the respondents, which has been made in the first reply statement dated 05.06.2018, was substantially downplayed in the additional reply statement filed later by the respondents dated 29.04.2023, almost five years later. This second statement was filed in response to the rejoinder filed by the applicant. Here what has been contended is that the applicant had not committed any 'mistake' as was stated in the first reply statement, by not uploading her Annexure A-3 marks list. On the other hand the argument put forth in the additional reply statement is to the effect that as far as the Kerala SSLC is concerned, after the year 2007 the system only takes into account the 'grades' as the Kerala State Board had shifted to only grading. It is clarified that no mark sheets are given to the candidates on completion /passing of the SSLC course. The 'marks' may be separately asked for by applying for a copy of the mark sheet. However, the basic declaration by the Kerala Board is in terms of the 'Grades' only in determining merit logic.
9. In short the respondents in their first reply statement have clarified that the final select list had been prepared based on the marks of the OA No.180/00358/2018 -12- candidate available in the uploaded certificate and entered by the candidates themselves. All the selected candidates in place/posts that the applicant had applied for, as shown in para 4.6 of the OA itself, had either more marks than the applicant (MG College BO) or had secured the exact same marks as the applicant (95%) (all other Bos). It is provided in Annexure R-1 that where two more candidates have equal marks, the candidates having the higher age (older candidate) will be selected. Accordingly, either the more meritorious candidate or the older candidate was selected against each of the said posts. It is contended in the first reply statement that the applicant, who had consciously chosen to upload the mark list with the grades instead of mark list with marks, cannot claim at this later stage that she is more meritorious than the selected candidates. Hence, her averments are devoid of merit.
10. The applicant had filed a rejoinder dated 16.07.2018 to the first reply statement. She pointed out in her rejoinder that the official notification had only demanded from candidates to upload their SSLC mark memo/certificate. Nowhere was it specified that the computer would then allot marks against the grade. Moreover, the respondents are OA No.180/00358/2018 -13- aware that both 'grades' and 'marks' are considered simultaneously and that the method of calculation mentioned in R1 was not specified in the notification at Annexure A-1. In other words, the applicant submits that if she had known beforehand, that uploading that certificate consisting of grades instead of the certificate consisting of actual marks would go against her, she would not have done the same. Nothing can be justified by the respondents at this stage on the ground that the Notification at Para 'M' item No.1 had indicated that the merit list would be automatically generated. The applicant submits that that if her mark list had been uploaded and she would have got marks as per Annexure A-3, she would then have been selected. The candidate selected for the post at MG College BO had scored 96.5278 whereas all other candidates had got 95% only. The respondents should have given candidates the option to upload marks in both formats of the 'actual marks' as well as 'grades' in the online application. However, the system did not insist on the uploading of the 'marks' certificate in the online portal. The contention in the reply statement of the respondents that she would have been selected if her original marks memo was uploaded is not acceptable, as she was not aware that a person with lesser score would be selected because of the computer generated faulty system.
OA No.180/00358/2018 -14-
11. The applicant says that the present system is faulty because grade A+ given in the SSLC, is being indicated against any candidate scoring between 91 -100% in the examination. The multiplication with 9.5 will not bring any equality or reasonable seniority on the basis of marks, unless the actual marks scored are taken with certain weightage. Further, it is specified that age is also given priority. Thus, in the present system she submits that a candidate with 91% marks if senior by just six months by age will get priority over another candidate 6 months younger who scored 99%, as everybody is equated to 95%. It is submitted that the respondents should not be permitted to go beyond the Recruitment Rules or notification published. The applicant had not suppressed any material facts. The respondents have no authority as a matter of right to reduce the percentage of marks obtained by her through a competitive exam conducted by an authorized body. However, the online portal service has permitted post 2007 SSLC pass candidates only to upload their grades. The respondents have an opportunity to correct this faulty system as they had accepted in their reply statement that the applicant had higher marks. Further, it is not known whether the candidate selected for GDSBPM MG College BO post was a post 2007 candidate or a pre-2007 candidate.
OA No.180/00358/2018 -15-
12. When the matter came up before this Tribunal on 12.04.2018, an interim order was issued to the 2nd respondent staying the operation of the entire Annexure A4 result till the matter was finally heard and disposed of. However, on 23.05.2018, this was modified and restricted to a stay of operation of Annexure A-4 result in respect of five stations to which the applicant had placed claim. This order continues till date and it is clear from this that no selection/appointment has been made against these 5 stations preferred by the applicant in her application form. Also, after the applicant had filed the rejoinder dated 16.07.2018, the matter could not be taken up for final disposal for various reasons including the Covid pandemic. The applicant had moved MA No.582/2022 for early hearing. Later MA No.319/2013 was filed by Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents for accepting the additional reply statement dated 29.03.2023, much after the initial pleadings were complete. This was allowed.
13. The additional reply statement dated 29.03.2023 has clearly distanced itself from some of the averments taken in the reply statement as we have noted, in relation to whether the applicant could have OA No.180/00358/2018 -16- uploaded her Annexure A-3 'Mark' list instead of the Certificate containing only 'Grades'. In the additional reply statement the respondents have taken a clear contention that the Board of Public Examinations Kerala, is only issuing 'Grade' sheets for the candidates who have completed SSLC from 2007 onwards. Hence the merit logic/ position of candidates year wise for the posts have been arrived at on the basis of the 'Grades' scored by the candidates and not 'Marks'. It is submitted by the respondents that no 'mark sheets' are given to the candidates on completion/passing of the Class 10th SSLC examination. A Mark Sheet is given only on a special application or request, if it is felt necessary by the candidate to have one. However, as a general practice, the Board of Public Examinations, Kerala does not give a 'Mark Sheet' to any of the candidate post 2007. Further the Grade Sheet is enough for admission to higher education courses also. As such, it is submitted that the Department of Posts had also configured the GDS online portal for the candidates to apply for the post of GDS, to accept only Grades. The applicant in this case may have scored 96.7187%, but her marks scored are immaterial to the selection process which has taken into account post 2007, in creating the order on merit on the basis of grades only.
OA No.180/00358/2018 -17-
14. It is submitted by the respondents that thousands of candidates had applied for the post of GDS after completing the SSLC examination from the Board of Public Examinations of Kerala and all of them had submitted only grade sheets. This step is part of the larger issue of excessive reliance on the 'awarding marks' system. Hence, every candidate who has an A+ or A1 Grade would be having marks in the range of 91 - 100 %. Explaining this further, it is submitted by the respondents in the additional reply statement, that there is a possibility for some candidates to have scored higher 'marks' than the applicant to the extent of 98% or 99%. However, as the prescribed 'Merit Logic' is now 'Grades' post 2007, no candidate would apply for a copy of the mark sheet and come up with a claim for a higher ranking in comparison to fellow candidates. It is submitted that this would negate the purpose for which the Grade system was introduced and which is being followed. Thus even if the applicant had 96.7187% there could still be hundreds of candidates with 97%, 98% or 99% marks. All candidates who have completed SSLC under the post 2007 scheme have accepted the Merit Logic as Grades. This cannot be changed for the benefit of some candidate. It is reiterated that candidates belonging to post 2007 batches are not supposed to get a copy of their 'Mark Sheet' by separate OA No.180/00358/2018 -18- application to the Boards and then submit the same claiming superiority over others when Grade is the factor which is the Merit logic.
15. As we have observed earlier, the respondents have now clearly moved from what was contended in the original reply statement that, had the applicant uploaded her mark sheet at Annexure A-3 in the online portal, she may have been favourably considered in comparison with other candidates owing to her higher marks. Now after five years after the filing of the original reply statement and the rejoinder by the applicant this contention has been given a quiet burial. As a Tribunal we have to go by the pleadings before us especially by what are latest contentions in the additional reply statement as this is before us before the matter was taken up for final hearing.
16. It is further submitted in the additional reply statement that a candidate cannot go by the simple word structure in para M of the notification, which has used the word 'Marks' and also provided for candidate marks to be aggregated to a percentage to the accuracy of 4 decimals. It is submitted that 'Marks' in this context is to be taken into OA No.180/00358/2018 -19- account only for those Boards, where merit logic is decided on the basis of 'marks'. However, where the Boards ranks candidates by 'Grades', then 'Grades' will have to form part of the merit logic. When the concerned Board does not give Marks to all candidate on declaration of result and gives only certificate with Grades, there is no question of taking the 'Marks' to decide the merit logic in GDS selection. It is reiterated that the Board of Public Examinations Kerala does not insist on anyone to get the Mark Sheet and only grades are provided in the SSLC Certificate. It is upto the candidate to get Mark Sheet to know her marks. Similarly, on the same basis, the Mark Sheet is also not insisted upon by the Department of Posts in the selection process of GDS, when the merit logic is 'Grades'. The merit logic for the year 2011 was on the basis of Grades. However, the applicant requested for a copy of the mark list and claimed a higher ranking in the GDS selection list. If the claim of the applicant is accepted all the candidates who had completed SSLC Board of Public Examination Kerala can make a similar claim, which is not acceptable.
17. In other words, it is submitted by the respondents that any candidate who had completed SSLC with a high Grade system score, can OA No.180/00358/2018 -20- subsequently enter the marks scored by him/her and thereby get placed above a candidate with an A+ in all the subjects in the Grading System. It is only on conversion of the Grades of A+ into marks, multiplying each A+ (Grade point of 10) grade by the multiplication factor 9.5 that the candidates is shown to have 95% marks for a subject. It is similarly done for all the subjects. Had the applicant passed a particular State Board of SSLC where there were no Grades but only marks and had she scored 98% marks therein, she too could have claimed 98%. But having studied in a 'Grade' SSLC scheme under the Board of Public Examinations of Kerala, claiming merit on the basis of marks is not acceptable. The claim does not stand ground. It is submitted that applicant has to understand that even though there may have been option to upload a copy of mark sheet, it is immaterial as far as the scheme of SSLC that she had studied in is concerned where all candidates of SSLC of the Board of Public Examination Kerala post 2007 need only to upload their SSLC Grade Sheet, as only Grade Sheets are given to the candidates. Getting a copy of the mark sheet by request/application is optional depending on the need of the candidate. Only the Grades entered by the candidate can be taken for deciding the merit of the candidate. The applicant's claim that there was no option to upload her mark list does not stand ground as only OA No.180/00358/2018 -21- her Grades would have been accepted by the system. It is submitted that when there is a system in place, candidates have to abide by it. As per the Board of Examinations Kerala, post 2007 SSLC certificates does not provide number marks in the Certificate, columns for entering the marks was considered to be unnecessary in the GDS online portal. Hence, the same were not configured in the application for the post of GDS. Other candidates who studied in the same scheme and applied for the post of GDS did not have any such complaints or claims, because they knew that there would not be entry of number marks scored by the candidates in the Grade Sheet.
18. It is submitted that the applicant has come up with this claim knowing these facts very well, but only for making an attempt. The candidate had selected 'result type' in the online application as 'Grade'. After having selected 'Grade' as her 'result type', while filing up the online application form, she cannot now claim that there was no option for entering marks and that she is up in the order in Merit. In other words the applicant cannot be counted as more meritorious than other candidates who had also scored A+ in all the subjects. All the candidates OA No.180/00358/2018 -22- who had scored A+ in all the subjects get a percentage of mark as 95%. If more than one candidate gets the same marks, the Selection Criteria mentioned in Para M of the Notification Annexure 1 will be referred to by the software and the merit list would be so prepared.
19. We have gone through the above repetitive contentions, explanations and rationale with careful attention. Overall, there are also certain other aspects, which, in our view, the applicant failed to be take into consideration. There is non-joinder of parties in this OA. If the applicant submits that she has to be considered as she has higher marks than those candidates who were selected for 5 offices that she had preferred, then she should have made them necessary parties in the OA. Further, we do not find that there was any change in the evaluation system midway or once the selection process was initiated. It is quite clear from the details provided as far as the State of Kerala Board of Public Examination concerned, it was the 'Grades' that the candidates had got in the SSLC, that have been taken into account. It is possible that those who had passed SSLC prior to 2007 and who had applied for consideration for the post of GDS may have furnished number marks OA No.180/00358/2018 -23- instead of Grades because, at that time, the 'Marks' were perhaps being accepted as the mode of ranking in merit logic. But once the system switched after 2007 to the present system of merit logic based on Grades and the applicant had applied for the same, using the present system without any demur, it would hardly be possible for this Tribunal to intervene and change a settled system at this stage. If she was unhappy with the system, going against her interest by taking into account the 'Grades' instead of 'Marks', which according to her would have given her higher ranking by merit logic, she should have prayed for relief accordingly in the OA that since the 'Marks' are also given to the candidates, the system should only consider the 'Marks' of candidates from Kerala and not 'Grades' to make a proper determination of the merit among them. In these circumstances, therefore, at this stage where the selection of GDS is taking place regularly on the same basis of 'Grades', any contra intervention is not possible. As was pointed out by the respondents, there could be candidates, who got even higher marks than the applicant i.e. marks to the extent of 97%, 98% or 99% who were also not selected, because either age was not in their favour. Such candidates can be thought of being equally aggrieved by the process which equalised their marks to 95%, just as in the case of the applicant.
OA No.180/00358/2018 -24-
20. Hence, in view of the above considerations, we are not allowing the OA. As we noted, there was a late realization by the respondents, that their argument taken in the initial reply statement was not tenable and could have gone against them while considering the matter. In fact, they made a change from blaming the applicant for not uploading the Mark sheet in Annexure A-3. However, it was later justified that only 'Grades' forms the basis for consideration of the merit logic in the system. As pointed out, in the overall interest of the system, which is functioning and in view of the issues raised above, we are not considering this change in position to have damaged the arguments in the pleadings. 21, In view of the above, we are dismissing the OA. No order as to costs.
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2023)
K. V. Eapen Justice Sunil Thomas
Administrative Member Judicial Member
va
OA No.180/00358/2018
-25-
List of Annexures
Annexure A1- A copy of the notification vide No.RECTT/50- 1/DLG/2016-17 Annexure A2- A copy of the online application made by the applicant Annexure A3- A copy of the SSLC marks sheet issued by the Secondary Board of Public Examinations, Kerala Annexure A4- A copy of the relevant portion of the results for Gramin Dak Sevak for Kerala Circle Annexure A5- A copy of the representation dated 05.04.2018 *** Annexure R-1-True copy of the Directorate letter No.17-39/2012-GDS dated 08.01.2014 Annexure R-2-True copy of the mark list uploaded by the applicant in response to the notification ***** OA No.180/00358/2018