Baharul Islam, J. - (1.) In these special leave petitions the petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 1979 of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing a number of writ appeals. The relevant facts may be stated thus:
(2.) The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter 'KPSC') invited applications for filling up 130 expected vacancies in the posts of Junior Engineers in the Public Works Department, as per notification published in the Kerala Gazette dated 16th May, 1978. The qualifications specified for the posts were B. Sc. in Civil Engineering or Mechanical Engineering of the Kerala University or its equivalent as prescribed by the special rules of the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (General Branch). The applicants had to appear in the written test conducted by the KPSC and thereafter in an interview held by it. There was a common question paper which contained, in Category I, questions in Civil Engineering and in Category II, questions in Mechanical Engineering. Applicants who were qualified in Civil Engineering had to answer the questions in Category I, and those qualified in Mechanical Engineering the questions in Category II.
(3.) After the written test and the interview, but before a common rank list was prepared by the KPSC as was intended, 8 Writ Petitions were filed in the Kerala High Court by applicants holding Civil Engineering degrees. By these Writ Petitions the preparation of a common rank list and also the procedure of the examination and a method of selection were challenged. It was prayed in the Writ Petitions that the KPSC be directed to effect selection and prepare and publish separate rank lists of selected applicants holding Civil and Mechanical Engineering degrees. It was contended in the applications that the applicants who had qualified in Civil Engineering question paper and answered the questions in Category I on the one hand and those who had qualified in Mechanical Engineering and answered questions indicated in Category II in the question paper could not rationally be included in a common rank list after the interview.;