The court emphasized the lack of statutory power for the University to retain an illegally appointed candidate, highlighting the importance of adherence to statutory provisions in appointment processes.

Antony Dominic, J.

These writ appeals are filed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition Nos.11184/11 and 17399/11.

2. Since the issues raised are connected, the cases were disposed of by a common judgment and for that same reason, these cases were heard together and are being disposed of together.

3. We shall first deal with W.A.1703/13. The appellant was working as a Lecturer in S.N. College, Kollam affiliated to the first respondent University. While so, on 3.2.2003, the first respondent University issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for various posts. One of the posts notified was that of Lecturer (Hindi) and it was reserved for candidates belonging to Ezhava community. The last date specified for submitting the application was 10.4.2003. Among others, appellant and the third respondent were also candidates. The interview was conducted on 26.4.2005 and in the rank list the appellant was No.1. Accordingly, she was appointed as Lecturer in the University on 12.5.2005 and resigning her job in the S.N. College, Kollam she joined the post. While continuing so, she was promoted as Reader in 2006.

4. In the meantime, W.P. (C) 15330/05 was filed by the third respondent challenging the process of selection undertaken by the University, which led to the appointment of the appellant. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment rendered on 2.2.2010. By the judgment, this Court set aside the selection and appointment of the appellant and directed the University to reassign the marks to the candidates after excluding the marks awarded to the candidates for the additional qualifications obtained by them after the last date for the submitting applications. It was also directed that on that basis the first rank holder in the select list should be appointed. The University challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.A.409/10. The appellant also filed W.A.403/10 against the judgment. Both these appeals were dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Honourable Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.(S) 11248/10 and that also was dismissed.

5. Accordingly, a fresh process was undertaken by the University and in that process, the third respondent was assigned rank No.1. On that basis, by Ext.P6 order dated 8.4.2010, he was appointed as Lecturer.

6. According to the appellant, subsequently she came to know that it was on the strength of Ext.P9 Gazette Notification dated 17.11.1996, by which the third respondent himself to be an Ezhava candidate, Ext.P11 caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar and Ext.P17 non creamy layer certificate produced by her that she asserted her claim as an Ezhava and secured employment at the University. Contending that these certificates were fraudulent, appellant submitted representations to the University and to the Government and also prayed that she shall be accommodated in the University atleast on a supernumerary basis. These requests of the appellant did not find any positive response from the University and it was in such circumstances, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.17399/11. In the writ petition, she sought to quash Exts.P6, P9, P11 and P17 mentioned above and sought a declaration that the caste certificate produced by the third respondent claiming his caste as Ezhava based on the above documents is illegal and that therefore the appointment obtained by him against the seat reserved for Ezhava is illegal. Her reinstatement in service was also sought for in the writ petition.

7. In so far as W.A.1506/13 is concerned, the main prayers in W.P. (C) 11184/2011 are as follows:

"1. Declare that petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in the service of the first respondent University and get all service benefits including continuity of service holding her termination as bad and illegal being violative of Article 21 and 19(1)(g), depriving her livelihood for no fault of hers or in alternative.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make