In W.P.(C) No. 25460 of 2010, the petitioners challenge the rank list prepared by the University of Calicut, in respect of a selection made pursuant to a notification published as Ext.P1, inviting applications to the post of L.D. Typists. The other writ petitions relates to claims with reference to the very same notification and rank list and hence decided by a common judgment.

2. By Ext.P1 the University invited applications from qualified candidates for the appointment to the post of L.D. Typists. The selection was done in terms of written test, practical test and interview. The petitioners also applied and participated in the exams but their names did not find a place in the rank list. As per the procedure followed 40marks each were allotted to written test and practical test and 20 marks for the interview. Ext.P6 is the provisional rank list prepared by the University after completing the aforesaid selection process.

3. Two contentions are raised by the petitioners. One is that the University normally followed certain guidelines of the year 1981 by which the rank list was prepared on the basis of written test and practical test for which the maximum marks was 100. Marks were given for interview from 25. Suitable number of candidates as decided by the selection committee is to be called for interview based on the marks of the written test/practical test. It is the contention of the petitioner that contrary to the said guidelines of the year 1981 without any change in the rules a different procedure is adopted by reducing the total marks inclusive of interview to 100.

4. The second contention is based on the short listing of the candidates. According to the petitioners, while preparing the rank list University has included only those persons who had a minimum of 20 marks in the written test this according to the petitioners is not a procedure that was adopted earlier and was not made known to any of the candidates and has come by way of a surprise. On the basis of the explanation given by the University the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding of the Vice Chancellor indicates that he had made modification to the earlier procedure and had prescribed a new procedure after the notification of the vacancies.

5. W.P.C.No.21329 of 2011 is filed by another candidate challenging the rank list inter alia contending that the procedure adopted for conducting the test was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner contends that the procedure of preparing a provisional rank list before conducting the interview is bad in law. Petitioner therefore seeks for canceling the rank list and for preparing a fresh rank list.

6. W.P.C.No.4233 of 2012 is filed by a candidate who supports the aforesaid rank list and contends that there are148 vacancies to the posts of L.D. Typists in the University and after filling up of various posts there are six vacancies. The rank list will expire on 30/06/2013 and if the University makes appointments to the existing vacancies the petitioner will also be benefited and therefore seeks for a direction to the University to fill up the post of L.D. Typists in the University.

7. W.P.(C) No. 1889 of 2012 is filed by a candidate who got selection to the post of L.D. Typist. While joining she sought for leave for higher studies which was permitted by the University. She came back and sought for joining which was not permitted by the University. During the pendency of the writ petition as directed by this Court by way of an interim order dated 10/02/2012, the petitioner has joined for duty in the University and therefore now seeks consequential benefits including salary as if she joined duty

8. W.P.(C) No.12920 of 2010 is filed by a candidate who seeks age relaxation in terms of Ext.P4 notification dated 17/6/2008. As per the notification the age of the candidate as on 01/01/2008 should not be more than 35years. As per Clause 2 of the notification it was indicated that persons who have already sub