HIGH COURT OF KERALA Vs. SIRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment in O.P.No. 5219 of 2002 dated 6.8.2004 is under challenge in Writ Appeal No. 1496 of 2004, at the instance of the High Court of Kerala. Two Original Petitions had been disposed of by a common judgment. The connected Original Petition was O.P.No. 7813 of 2002 and the respondent-- High Court of Kerala has filed Writ Appeal No. 1497 of 2004 therefrom. In the meanwhile, petitioners themselves had thought it necessary to bring in appeals to the extent reliefs had not been granted to them. The private respondents, who stood adversely affected, also have filed appeals, questioning the legality of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Third parties too have preferred Writ Appeals, seeking to intervene in the proceedings. Two Original Petitions, filed earlier, but which had not been listed along with the connected cases, also had been referred to be heard along with the group of Writ Appeals. The details could be given as herein below.

(2.) Writ Appeal No. 1584 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 5219 of 2002 seeking for larger reliefs. Likewise, Writ Appeal No. 1719 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner in O.P.No. 7813 of 2002 praying for similar reliefs. Writ Appeal Nos. 1498, 1510, 1526, 1527, 1542, 1583 and 1975 have been filed respectively by respondents 8, 7, 5, 6, 3, 4 and 9 in O.P.No. 5219 of 2002. The Third respondent in O.P.No. 7813 of 2002 has filed Writ Appeal No. 1503 of 2004. Writ Appeal Nos. 1646, 1647 and 1791 of 2004 are the appeals filed by third parties, challenging the common judgment. O.P.No. 15861 of 2002 is filed by an aspirant, who had participated in the selection, which was the subject matter of the Original Petitions along with the second petitioner, an Association of persons, who had challenged the selection as also the vires of Rule 15(c) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. Petitioner in O.P.No. 6784 of 2004 has similar claims. Counsel representing the parties had addressed us on facts and law and taken us through a plethora of decisions vindicating their respective stand.

(3.) Two impleading petitions had been filed by third parties. One such petition had been rejected, at the threshold, for non-prosecution. The petition filed by the Muslim Service Society for impleading themselves had not been formally allowed, but opportunity was offered to them to make submissions at the time of final hearing. They sympathised with the cause of the petitioners in the Original Petitions.