Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. This is an application filed by the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment (3rd respondent in WP (C) No. 18666 of 2015) praying that, the question of maintainability of the writ petition may be heard as a preliminary issue. The writ petitioner (1st respondent in this IA) is an aspirant for appointment to the post of Executive Director in the Centre for Water Resources Development and Management, Kozhikode (CWRDM), one of the research and development institution under the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment (KSCSTE) which is an autonomous body under the Government of Kerala. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition read thus;

"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext. P8 and to quash the same;

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Executive Director in CWRDM forthwith;

(iii) To issue an injunction against the respondents restraining them from taking any steps to notify the vacancy of the post of Executive Director of CWRDM and to proceed further in the matter of appointment to the post of Executive Director of CWRDM."

2. On the question of maintainability of the writ petition, the arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for the KSCSTE are as follows;

"(i) The first relief sought for in the writ petition, namely, a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P8 order dated 14/05/2015 passed by the KSCSTE is not maintainable- since what is sought to be quashed is the action taken in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P7 judgment in the previous writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, i.e., WP (C) No. 24214 of 2013;

(ii) The second relief sought for in the writ petition, namely, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the writ petitioner to the post of Executive Director in CWRDM is not maintainable since the writ petitioner has sought a similar relief in the previous writ petition i.e., WP (C) No. 24214 of 2013, based on the same set of facts, which has already been considered in Ext. P7 judgment;

(iii) The third relief sought for in the writ petition, namely, an order of injunction restraining the respondents from taking any steps to notify the vacancy of the post of. Executive Director of CWRDM and to proceed further in the matter of appointment to that post, and also the first relief sought for, namely, a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P8 order, have become infructuous since Ext. R3(a) fresh notification dated 22/06/2015 for appointment to that post has already been published by the KSCSTE. As such the first and second reliefs are not maintainable any longer;

(iv) Though, in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has disclosed the filing of the previous writ petition and produced Ext. P7 judgment of this Court in WP (C) No.24214 of 2013, the affidavit accompanying the writ petition contains a false statement that, he has not filed any petition before this Court seeking similar or identical reliefs on the same subject-matter."

3. I heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for the KSCSTE, who argued at length on the question of maintainability of the writ petition. I have also heard arguments of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader representing the State.

4. Regarding the first relief, the learned Standing Counsel would contend that, a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P8 order is not maintainable since it is an action taken by the KSCSTE in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P7 judgment in WP (C) No. 24214 of 2013.

5. The recruitment to the post of Executive Director in CWRDM was the subject-matter in WP (C) No. 24214 of 2013 the previous writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. The said writ petition was originally filed seekin