Balakrishnan Nair, J.

Since common questions arose for decision in these Writ Appeals, they are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment. The main point that arises for decision in these cases is whether the Mahatma Gandhi University can make appointments to more vacancies than that are notified for selection.

2. This appeal is treated as the main case. The appellant was the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 were the writ petitioners. The 1st respondent University issued Ext.P3 notification dated 212.2005, inviting applications for various teaching posts under it. Item No.16 under the said notification was for appointment to two posts of Lecturer International Relations/Political Sciences/History/Economics in the School of International Relations. The writ petitioners were qualified for appointment to the said post. Pursuant to the said notification, the Selection Committee met on 8.3.2006, held the interview of the candidates and published the rank list on 25.2006. The appellant was ranked as Rank No.2. He was an open merit candidate. Rank No.1 was appointed in the open merit vacancy. The second vacancy was filled up by an Ezhava reservation candidate. While so, as per Ext.P1 proceedings dated 6.1.2007, one Dr.K.N. Harikumar, who was a Senior Lecturer working in the School of International Relations and Politics was relieved from the University, to enable him to join the Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum. He availed leave without allowance from the University on 210.2001 and was working as an Associate Fellow in the said Centre. Since the said institution decided to absorb him, he moved for relieving him from the service of the University and the same was granted as per Ext.P1 proceedings. In the resultant third vacancy, which arose in January, 2007, Rank No.2 was proposed to be appointed. On coming to know of this, the writ petitioners approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs.

i) to declare that the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Lecturer in the School of International Relations and Politics in Mahatma Gandhi University is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional;

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to terminate the service of the 2nd respondent as Lecturer, forthwith

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to refrain from appointing the 2nd respondent or any other candidates as Lecturer in School of International Relations and Politics in M.G. University without issuing a proper advertisement on the basis of Chapter III clause 3 of Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes 1997 and without following the procedure stated therein;

iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to initiate a fresh selection process for appointment of Lecturer in the School of International Relations and Politics in M.G. University by issuing a proper advertisement as contemplated by Chapter III of Clause 3 of Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes 1997.

3. The main contention raised in the writ petition was that the University can fill up only the vacancies notified by it and in support of that submission, the petitioners relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Kerala Agricultural University v. Gopinathan Unnithan [1996(1) KLT 344] and the decision of the Apex Court in Asok Kumar v. Chairman B.S. Recruitment Board [AIR 1996 SC 976]. They also relied on the decision of this Court in Rajamohan v. The State of Kerala [1997(1) ILR, Kerala 199].

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, since the 2nd respondent was appointed, the writ petition was amended challenging his appointment also. The 2nd respondent/appellant resisted the prayers in the writ petition, by filing a detailed counter affidavit. He pointed out that the writ petitioners were defeated candidates and therefore, they have no locus standi to raise the challenge against his appointment. It was also submitted that after having participat