1. All these writ petitions concern a common issue regarding the filling up of the post of Assistants in Kannur University. WP (C) Nos. 21142/2010 & 36023/2010 are filed by persons who are claiming that they are fully qualified for appointment if a fresh notification is issued by the University. In WP (C) Nos. 6068/2011 and 11523/2011, the petitioners are candidates who have been included in the rank list published by the University for appointment to the said post. The whole dispute is whether the University can make appointment, in excess of the number of vacancies specified in the notification.

2. Ext. P1 produced in WP (C) No. 21142/2010 is the copy of the notification issued by the University dated 04/09/2008. Against the post of Assistant, the number of vacancies shown is 45. After conducting a written test as well as interview, a rank list was published on 02/08/2010. Forty -five vacancies have been filled up by making appointments also. The contention taken by the petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 21142/2010 and 36023/2010 mainly is that exceeding the number of vacancies notified, the University is trying to fill up further vacancies, which will deprive the right of the petitioners under Art.14 and Art.16 of the Constitution of India. They contend for the position that since the exact number of vacancies have been specified in the notification, the University cannot go beyond the said limit after exhausting the vacancies notified for making further appointments. It is pointed out that there is no prescription in the notification that the vacancies notified as 45, could be varied at a later point of time, by the University and further appointments can be made in respect of any anticipated / future vacancies exceeding 45, from the same rank list.

3. Apart from the said contention, the petitioner in WP (C) No. 21142/2010 has challenged Exts. P3 and P4 orders by which respondents 2 to 10 have been granted appointments as Assistants by way of category change. Ext. P3 is the order dated 29/04/2004 whereby respondents 2 and 3 who were holding the posts of Senior Grade Typist and Senior Grade Stenographer, were allowed category change to come over to the post of Assistant Grade II, pursuant to a decision taken by the Syndicate. Similar is the order Ext. P4, whereby respondents 4 to 10 who were also holding the posts like Senior Grade Typist, Upper Division Typist, Stenographer Grade I and Sweeper, were given category change. The contention raised is that the only method to fill up the vacancy of Assistant is by direct recruitment and therefore as the University Act or Statute do not prescribe any other mode of appointment, those orders cannot be sustained.

4. In WP (C) Nos. 6068/2011 and 11523/2011 as already noticed, the petitioners are candidates included in the rank list published by the University. Their contention is that there are sufficient number of vacancies even now existing in the University and even as on the date of publication of the notification Ext. P1, actually there were 66 vacancies of Assistants and at least to that extent the vacancies could be filled up by the University. Their contention is that going by the decision of the Syndicate produced as Ext. P3 in WP (C) No. 6068/2011, resolving to notify all the existing / anticipatory vacancies of all teaching and non -teaching posts, it can be seen that there were more number of vacancies which were existing than those notified. Ext. P4 therein is a resolution of the Syndicate for instituting 86 numbers of non - teaching posts, sanctioned by the Government as per order dated 26/05/2008. It is therefore contended that the limit provided in the notification as 45, has no basis and the decision of the Syndicate will enable the University to fill up anticipatory vacancies also.

5. In the counter - affidavit filed by the University in WP (C) No. 21142/2010, various facts have been explained. It is averred that for the post of Assistant, nearly 15000 applicati