JUDGMENT

The petitioners were participants for selection to the post of Typist in the first respondent University. Even though the notification was issued in 1995, the rank list was published after completing the formalities, in 2009 only. Thereafter, the University has appointed five persons from the rank list. Seeking for a direction for filling up of the remaining vacancies, this writ petition has been filed.

2. The stand taken by the University in their counter affidavit is that the number of vacancies available as on the date of notification was five and by appointing five persons, the University has complied with the stipulations in the notification and there is no scope for appointing anybody from the rank list. It is also submitted that the typewriters itself became obsolete by the passage of time.

3. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that a subsequent notification was also issued. It is further submitted that even though the petitioners moved the Syndicate, the Syndicate also resolved to reject the request of the petitioners.

wpc 30822/2010 2

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already subm