A.M. Shaffique, J.

1. Since common questions arise in the above writ petitions they are decided together.

2. Petitioners are class IV employees of the first respondent, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit. The University issued Ext.P1 notification dated 30/11/2009, inviting applications for the post of 52 vacancies of Assistants. 5% of the said vacancies were earmarked for class IV employees of the University. By Ext.P2 order dated 04/10/2010, the University increased the 5% posts reserved for class IV employees to 10%.

3. Petitioners are applicants who participated in the selection process. After participating in the written test, they were not called for any interview. No rank list was published by the University in respect of candidates who had participated in the selection process from class IV employees. The petitioner in W.P.C.No.20541 of 2011, therefore contends that there is inordinate delay in conducting the interview and publishing the rank list. According to the petitioner the competitive test includes written test as well as interview. Written test carries 100 marks and interview 25 marks. Only the written test was conducted and the interview was not conducted. The rank list could be prepared only after conducting the written test and interview. Hence the petitioner seeks for publication of rank list after conducting the interview exclusively for low- paid employees and to make appointments to the 10% posts.

4. In W.P.C.No.19731 of 2012 the petitioner is a similarly placed person who also seeks identical reliefs and further challenges Ext.P5 Government order insisting on 40% minimum marks in written test to be included in the separate rank list and for other consequential reliefs.

5. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that, as per the notification for selection of candidates the method of selection is stated to be, by written test and interview. The respondent University has shortlisted candidates by resorting to the marks obtained for the written test alone. A minimum of 40% marks is stipulated for the written test, which according to the petitioners is illegal, as it is not specifically mentioned in the notification.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University it is inter alia contended that even in the notification it is specifically stated that 5% of the total existing vacancies will be filled up from low paid staff working in the University from the separate rank list maintained exclusively after conducting the written test. They produced the relevant Government order dated 08/12/1989, as per which it is stated that in order to get included in the rank list the candidate has to secure 40% mark in the competitive test. According to them the said Government order has been implemented in the University as per University order dated 06/07/2006 which is produced as Ext.R2(c). Since the petitioners have only secured less than 40% marks in the written test they were not called for the interview. Therefore, according to the University, at the time of notification only 5% seats were available and that too, only for candidates securing minimum 40% marks in the written test. In fact, according to the University, only one person got more than 40% marks in the written test. He was called for interview and he was selected as early as on 22/12/2010 as per Ext.R1(a) produced in W.P.C No.20541 of 2011. Further, University has contended that altogether 12,241 candidates appeared. University published a short list of 467 candidates eligible to be called for interview, after the written test. There was only one candidate who scored 40 and above from among the low-paid employees and he alone was included in the shortlist. Interview was conducted for 14 days from 20/11/2010 to 20/12/2010 and after the interview a final rank list was drawn up and published on 22/12/2010. The fifth respondent was the only person appointed from the category of class IV employees of the University.

7. Having