Antony Dominic, J.

1. These appeals are filed against the common judgment in WP (C) 33953/11 and 19769/12. Appellant in WA Nos. 1391/15 and 1392/15 is the 4th respondent in WP (C) 19769/12 and 3rd respondent in WP (C) 33953/11. WA Nos. 1459/15 and 1472/15 have been filed by respondents 1 to 3 in WP (C) 19769/12 and respondents 1 and 2 in WP (C) 33953/11 respectively. First respondent in all these appeals is the petitioner who filed the writ petitions in question. The issue that led to the filing of the writ petitions is the claim of the first respondent herein for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Law, which was a post reserved for physically handicapped persons. Though there is no dispute that the first respondent satisfied all the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, according to the University, she was over-aged and therefore, it appointed the appellant in WA Nos. 1391/15 and 1392/15. In the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge held that the first respondent herein was eligible for relaxation in the upper age limit prescribed by the University and on that reasoning, held the action of the University in not considering her suitability for the post of Lecturer in Law illegal. Learned Single Judge also held that the appointment of the appellant in WA Nos. 1391/15 and 1392/15 is illegal and directed the University to consider the suitability of the first respondent by treating her as a candidate who has the necessary age qualification and is otherwise eligible for the post. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.

2. We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in WA Nos. 1391/15 and 1392/15, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in WA 1459/15 and 1472/15 and the first respondent who appeared as party-in-person.

3. The facts which are required to be noticed are that the first respondent is a visually impaired person with 100% disability as certified by the medical board. She acquired LLB degree and Post Graduate Degree in Law. She has also obtained National Eligibility Test qualification. On 29/01/2008, the Kannur University issued a notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts mentioned therein, including the post of Lecturer in law, reserving the same to physically handicapped persons. Apart from the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, as far as the age of the candidates is concerned, it was specified that as on 01/01/2008, the candidates should be below 40 years of age. It was also specified that "usual relaxation in upper age will be given to candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC and other categories as per the University rules". The last date for receipt of the applications was specified as 28/02/2008.

4. The first respondent, who satisfied the educational qualifications, applied for the post of Lecturer in Law, she being a visually impaired person. She was issued memo dated 22/09/2010, directing her to appear before the Selection Committee for an interview on 05/10/2010. She appeared before the Selection Committee with all certificates. According to her, in view of the fact that as on 01/01/2008 she was 40 years and 7 months old, at the time of interview, a question was raised with regard to her age and she clarified to the Selection Committee that by virtue of the Government Orders dated 29/05/1973 and 25/05/1984, she was entitled to the benefit of age relaxation as contemplated therein for physically handicapped persons. There was no further communication from the University and this led her to file WP (C) 33953/11. Through the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition, she came to understand that the appellant in WA Nos. 1391/15 and 1392/15, a candidate from the open category, was appointed to the post of Lecturer in Law with effect from 21/12/2011. It was thereupon that the first respondent filed WP (C) 19769/12.

5. The justification offered by the University for treating the first respondent