Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. As already held by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforecited judgments, the respondent-Public Service Commission being a constitutional body created and established in terms of Article 315 of the Constitution of India to discharge the duties and functions envisaged in terms of Article 320 of the Constitution of India, is a constitutional entity and as a constitutional entity, it can regulate its own procedure. Rule 11(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure would explicitly manifest in the said aspect. It is in the light of these powers OP(KAT).No.196 OF 2020 conferred on the Kerala Public Service Commission that the said body has framed the above said criteria in question. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has also taken note of the fact that the respondent-Kerala Public Service Commission after conducting detailed study has modified the earlier Circular No.12/1995 dated 19.12.1995 and subsequent Circular No.3/2011 dated 18.01.2011 and has issued Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.08.2013 for arriving at the present basis of marking and decided to grant credit marks up to 30 for the marks obtained in the academic examinations. It is also pointed out that credit for the academic marks is granted by reducing the percentage of marks secured to a unit of 30 employing a normalisation method. These are all matters, which would come not only within the jurisdictional competence of the Kerala Public Service Commission but also within their selection policy prerogatives, as it is not only constitutional body but is also authority to conduct and finalize selection to various posts in Public Services. Any such criteria of marking adopted by a selection body like Kerala Public Service Commission, may not find equal favour with all the candidates concerned and it may be well- neigh impossible for any selection authority to devise a perfect formula, which would be acceptable to all or majority of the candidates who part take in the selection process. Based on the jurisdictional competence and OP(KAT).No.196 OF 2020 the policy prerogative as well as their consistent long experience, it is for the selection body like Public Service Commission to devise a method, which should be free from arbitrariness or unreasonableness. The impugned method of marking cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable and certainly cannot be found fault with as beyond the jurisdictional competence of the respondents. As noted hereinabove, the matter in issue is no longer res integra and is covered against the petitioner by the aforementioned judgments of the Division Bench of this Court.