(1.) This is a batch of 11 Letters Patent Appeals which have arisen out of judgment dated 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions and 14 writ petitions claiming same relief. These 11 Letters Patent Appeals have emanated therefrom in the following manner:-
(2.) This is how all these 11 Letters Patent Appeals were clubbed together and heard by us. At this stage itself we would like to mention that numbers of miscellaneous applications have also been filed in these proceedings by many others who were not parties to the writ petitions decided by the learned Single Judge(s) or even in the writ petitions bearing No. 5972 of 2011 and 22871 of 2010. However, the applicants in these Civil Miscellaneous Applications are also those persons who had participated in the selection and are claiming appointments to the posts on the basis of their inter-se merit in the merit list prepared by the State on the basis of the said examination. Thus the scope of the writ petitions which were decided by the learned Single Judge(s) has been expanded considerably by filing two writ petitions as well and the entire gamut of dispute is before us in these 11 Letters Patent Appeals and 14 civil writ petitions and miscellaneous applications. To put in nut-shell, the petitioners who have filed the writ petitions which have been allowed by the learned Single Judge (s) are pressing that the appointments be offered only to these writ petitioners who had approached the Court well in time. Others who had not come to the Court earlier and are now before us in the form of two writ petitions filed in the year 2011 or other writ petitions or by way of miscellaneous applications filed even thereafter in those writ petitions submit that when the appointments are to be made it should be on the basis of the merit list of the selected candidates and cannot be restricted to the original petitioners only.
(3.) Under what circumstances such disputes arose can be gauged from the following factual backdrop:-