account the purpose sought to be achieved. Therefore, it cannot be held as violative of either Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In fact, Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 would reveal that the `basis of marking' was revised thereunder, virtually, taking into account such complaints. But, at the same time, we are of the considered view that on that reason no interference is invited with Circular No.17/2013 dated 16.8.2013 and also the basis of marking followed by the PSC in the selections involved in the cases on hand. Sajan N. Menon's case (supra) would reveal that this Court repelled the challenge against the 'basis of marking' wherein the weightage was given for academic marks based on a particular grading system, as can be seen from paragraphs 8 and 9 in that case. When 'basis of marking' as revealed from the said paragraphs was already given the stamp of approval by this Court, as can be seen from the decision in Sajan N. Menon's case, an interference with the selection for following such a 'basis of marking' in tune with Clause 339 of the PSC Manual is impermissible. In this context, it is also to be noted that the weightage for academic performance to be given in regard to the selection conducted by the PSC is virtually reduced by PSC subsequent to Sajan N. Menon's case. In other words, it is the case of the applicants themselves that earlier credit for academic marks based on the earlier circular was 'out of 50' and now it is 'out of 30'. The applicants cannot have, rather did not have, a contention that circular dated 19.12.1995 or 18.1.2011 is more favourable than the circular dated 16.8.2013. In view of the existence of such circulars the applicants cannot canvass the position that virtually there occurred an infraction of the procedure by introducing provision for awarding credit for
