IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 2021 of 2009(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ASHA.P., D/O.K.PONNAMMA, RESIDING AT GOPIKA, TC.XXVII/770, R,R,A,F-143, RISHIMANGALAM, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 035. BY MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. MR. T.C. SURESH MENON, MR.JIBU P. THOMAS, MR.P.S. APPU, MR.NIMOD.A.R, MR.C.A. ANOOP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOME(C) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR(GENERAL), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 4. BABU.K., RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THEVANNOOR P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM. W.P.(C). NO.2021/2009-R: 5. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESIDING AT ZAHIRA, PO.CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-2. 6. BADHARUDEEN.A., RESIDING AT PANAYIL VEEDU, MYLAKKADU PO., KOLLAM. 7. LAKSHMI.K., ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT SATHYAGRIHA, BHAJANA KOVIL ROAD, CHALAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-673 002. 8. GIRIJA.P.G., R/AT.KAZHANIPARAMBIL, PARAMPUZHA PO., KOTTAYAM-86032. 9. SHAJITH.T., R/AT.UDAYAM, I.M.A HALL ROAD, PO.NADAKKAVU, CALICUT-11. 10. BEVEENA NATHA.K.S.,RESIDING AT TAJ, PRAYIKARA, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 101. 11. MANILAL.C.S, RESIDING AT CHENNATTU HOUSE, VELLAVOOR P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686 541. 12. NAZEERA.S., RESIDING AT 8/61, NELSA , VIDYA NAGAR, PALAKKAD. 13. BALAMURALEEDHARAN.G.,RESIDING AT `SMRUTHI, STADIUM ROAD, N.PARAVUR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 14. SHEREEF.K.P., RESIDING AT KADAMBIL, POOZHITHARAMMAL HOUSE, PO.TRIPRANGODU, TIRUR. 15. BALAKRISHNAN.K.K., ADVOCATE RESIDING AT KARIYANGATTE HOUSE, PARAPPUPARA, KODIYURA P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 16. SULEKHA.M., RESIDING AT PANAMVILAKAM VEEDU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 126. 17. AJITH THANKAYYA, RESIDING AT PADMALAYAM, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 18. ASHA.B.MATHEWS, RESIDING AT PALLATHU HOUSE, PALATHINKAL LANE, N.F.GATE, TRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM-682 301. 19. SHERLY.S.A., R/AT.PUNNAKKATTUSSERY, V.B.GARDEN, B1, F3, CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANAD WEST P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 030. W.P.(C). NO.2021/2009-R: 20. MOHANAN VALIYAPURAYIL, RESIDING AT VALIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, PAZHASSI, PAVANNOOR MOTTA P.O., KANNUR. 21. ANILRAJ.K.K., RESIDING AT KAYAKANDIYIL HOUSE, PUDUPPANAM PO., VATAKARA, KOZHIKKODE – 673 105. 22. LATHA JAYARAJ, RESIDING AT LATHA REMAM, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD-678 001. 23. ANILC.D.,RESIDING AT ASHA BHAVAN, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALLEPPEY. 24. SUNIL KUMAR.K., RESIDING AT CHEMBAKA HOUSE, NANMINDA POST, KOZHIKODE-673 613. 25. CLEMANCE ANTO GRACE THOTTAPPILLY, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT TRAMWAY LANE, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR-680 307. 26. FATHIMMA BEEVI.M.M.,RESIDING AT SANDRAM, KURAKKANNI, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 27. CHITHRA LEKHA.V.K.,RESIDING AT RAMAVILAS, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-18. 28. BABU SANKAR.R., RESIDING AT AKSHAYA, VKNRA – 153, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM-12. 29. ALPHONSA JOHN, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT KALLINGAL HOUSE, PO.ALOOR, THRISSUR-680 683. 30. ALIYAR.M.M.,RESIDING AT M.M.HOUSE, MOOZHICHAL ROAD, MARKET P.O., 31. SIVANANDAN.C.T.,RESIDING AT CHEEKILOTTU THAZHATH HOUSE, P.O.MAKKADA, KAKKODI, PIN-673 617. W.P.(C). NO.2021/2009-R: 32. BEENA.K.C., RESIDING AT KOMATHARA HOUSE, (CHAKUMCHATH), UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., NADAKKAVU, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. P.NANDAKUMAR, R2 & R3 BY MR. K.R.B.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR. B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, R4 & R16 BY MR. K.P. DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR. MILLU DANDAPANI, R5 BY ADV. MR. A. MOHAMMED MUSTAQUE, R6 BY ADV. MR. V.A. MUHAMMED, R7 & R27 BY ADV. MR. P.C. SASIDHARAN, R8 BY ADV. MR. JAMES KURIAN, R12 BY ADV. MR. ELVIN PETER P.J, R18 BY ADV. MR. BIJU ABRAHAM, R20 BY ADV. MR. K. MOHANAKANNAN, R21 BY ADV. MR. U.K. DEVIDAS, R22 BY ADV. MR. K.K.M. SHERIFF, R25 BY ADV. MR. G. SREEKUMAR, R26 BY ADV. MR. J.S. AJITH KUMAR, R31 BY ADV. MR. SIRAJ KAROLY, R32 BY ADV. SMT.T.C. SOWMIAVATHY, ADVS. MR. K.R. AVINASH (KUNNATH), MR.M.SAJJAD, SMT. A.R.PRAVITHA, MR. SANTHOSH MODAYIL, MR. LAL.K.JOSEPH, MR.A.A. ZIYAD RAHMAN, SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL, MR. K.RAVI (PARIYARAM). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, ALONG WITH W.P. (C). NO. 2282/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 12/11/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.2021/2009-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 24/11/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENROLMENT ISSUED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA DTD. 25/04/2000. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DTD. 16/04/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE D.O.B. OF PETITIONER AS 05/04/1973. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CONDUCT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. NIL. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DULY FILLED UP BY THE PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED TO THE R.3. DTD 28/06/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE PETITIONER DTD. NIL. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE CALL LETTER ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 13/11/2008. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY THE R.3. DTD. 13/01/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. R. BANNURMATH, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C).NOS.2021/09 R, 2282/09 R, 2302/09 R, 3543/09 R, 4810/09 R, 14027/09 R & 19032/09, --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th November, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. Several important and interesting questions arise for our consideration in this batch of Writ Petitions coming up by reference by a learned Single Judge, Justice T. R. Ramachandran Nair. What is the effect of the founding fathers providing for seven years experience as an Advocate to be eligible for appointment as a District Judge in Article 233(2) ? Does the acceptance of the Report of the Shetty Commission by the Apex Court in the decision in All India Judges' Association And Others v. Union of India And Others((2002) 4 SCC 247) (hereinafter referred to as the All India Judges case) amount to declaration of law ? What is the impact of the amendment in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) prescribing the qualification of WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 2 minimum age as thirtyfive and the maximum age as fortyfive for appointment as a District Judge on the rights of the writ petitioners, who had applied for selection and passed the written test prior to the amendment? 2. The Facts: The High Court of Kerala issued a Notification dated 16.4.2007 inviting applications for appointment as District Judges. The last date for receipt of applications was fixed as 30.6.2007. The qualifications prescribed, inter alia, are as follows: Qualifications for appointment: A candidate for appointment as District Judge from the Bar shall satisfy the following conditions: (a) He shall be a Citizen of Indian Union. (b) He shall not have completed 47 years of age on the first day of January, 2007. (c) He shall be of good character. (d) He shall be of sound health and active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity which renders him unfit for such appointment. (e) He shall not have more than one wife living unless WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 3 exempted by the Government on special grounds. (f) He shall be a practising Advocate and should have so practised for a period of not less than 7 (seven) years. Note.-(1): Upper age limit shall be raised by five years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or adult members of such Castes and their children when such adult members are converted to other religion or Scheduled Tribes and by three years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Other Backward Classes. (2) For relaxation of age limit for other categories of persons, provisions in Rule 10 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 may be referred to. Any one coming within the description in the Rules and who satisfies the other conditions can also apply. (3) Save as otherwise provided, eligibility shall be determined with reference to the last date fixed for receipt of the applications.” The petitioners filed applications pursuant to the Notification. WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 4 The process of selection contemplated under the Notification comprises of a written examination and a viva voce. The written test was held from 27.10.2007 to 29.10.2007. After conduct of the written test, the Rules came to be amended. The amendment with which we are concerned, relates to the prescription of minimum and maximum age. The following is the amendment: “(d): For clause (b) of sub-rule (2), the following shall be substituted, namely:- “(b) He shall have attained the age of 35 years and shall not have completed 45 years of age on the first day of January of the year in which applications for appointment are invited: Provided that the provisions in sub-rule (c) of Rule 10 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 raising the upper age limit in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, adult members of Scheduled Castes and their children when such adult members are converted to other religions, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes shall be applicable to such candidates for appointment under Rule (2) (c) (iii).” WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 5 After the substitution, the relevant Rule reads as follows: “3.(2): A candidate for appointment to category (2) from the Bar shall satisfy the following general conditions, namely.- x x x x (b) He shall have attained the age of 35 years and shall not have completed 45 years of age on the first day of January of the year in which applications for appointment are invited. Provided that the provisions in sub-rule (c) of Rule 10 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 raising the upper age limit in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, adult members of Scheduled Castes and their children when such adult members are converted to other religions, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes shall be applicable to such candidates for appointment under Rule (2)(c) (iii).” The amendment which came into force “at once”, was published in the Official Gazette on 12.6.2008. Subsequently, the viva voce was held from 1.12.2008 to 12.12.1008. The petitioners (save one) were invited for the interview. The petitioner in W.P. WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 6 (C).No.2302/09 came to be interviewed pursuant to the Judgment in W.A. No.229/08. It is subsequently that a select list came to be published. However, the complaint of the petitioners is that they stand excluded from selection on the basis of amendment to the Rules prescribing minimum and maximum age as aforesaid. That is to say, except for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.3543/09, all the other writ petitioners being below thirtyfive years of age as on 1.1.2007, stand excluded from being considered for appointment. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.3543/09 stands excluded by virtue of his being over aged in terms of the amended rule. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Kerala as also the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties including the State of Kerala. The Contentions: 4. Shri K. Jaju Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 2282/09 would essentially raise two contentions WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 7 before us. He would submit that the petitioners fulfilled the criteria which were stipulated in the Notification. The only stipulation as to age contained in the Notification as also the Rules was that the candidate should not have crossed fortyseven years of age. He would submit that the Notification makes it clear that the question of qualifications and conditions would be judged with reference to the last day prescribed for receipt of applications. The last date was 30.6.2007. The petitioners could not, therefore, be eliminated with reference to the amendment incorporated in the Rules by publication in the Gazette dated 12.6.2008. He would submit that the amendment does not have any retrospective effect. The amendment is purely prospective as is evident from the words indicating that the amendment would come into effect at once. He would, therefore, submit that the amendment, even if it is valid, would not apply in respect of the writ petitioners. He would press into service the principle that once a recruitment process has commenced, the Rules of the game cannot be altered and even if WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 8 there is an alteration, it will not affect the rights of those who had already applied and the matters must be decided in respect of the applicants with reference to the qualifications and conditions as they prevailed with reference to the relevant day which in this case, is the last day for receipt of the applications. In this regard, he relied on the case law, which we shall advert to. 5. Shri K. Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.19032/09 would, apart from adopting the contentions of Shri Jaju Babu, contend as follows: The amendment to the Rules which is impugned by him is ultra vires of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. According to him, the prescription of a minimum age limit of thirtyfive years would be opposed to the prescription of the eligibility condition of seven years experience as an Advocate. He would submit that subordinate legislation cannot, if it does not square with the constitutional provisions, survive judicial scrutiny. He would submit that the prescription of eligibility to be appointed as a WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 9 District Judge being only that the candidate should have seven years practice would impliedly exclude the fixation of the minimum age of thirtyfive years. He would expatiate and submit that if the candidate has seven years of practice and thus fulfills the requirement of Article 233(2), an age limit which is incompatible with the prescription of seven years as the eligibility condition is impermissible. He would contend that without an amendment to Article 233, the amendment was illegal. 6. Shri M. Pathros Mathai, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14027/09, however, would contend that the petitioner in his case, in fact, complies with the condition that the candidate should be thirtyfive years of age. His argument is that in accepting the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, all that the Supreme Court has decided was that the candidate should have a minimum age of thirtyfive years to be appointed as District Judge. He does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not thirtyfive years of age WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 10 as on 1.1.2007. But, he would contend that there would be no transgression of the recommendation which stood accepted by the Apex Court that the candidate should be thirtyfive years of age when he is appointed as a District Judge, in the case of the petitioner. It is the petitioner's case that he attained thirtyfive years of age before the cut off date, namely the last day for receipt of applications. He would also submit that the amendment in the Rule is only prospective and the amendment could not adversely affect the fate of the petitioner. The decision in Dipitimayee Parida v. State of Orissa & Others ((2008 (10) SCC 687) is an authority for the proposition that the question of qualification or extra qualification should be appreciated with reference to the last date for filing of the applications. It is in the same vein, that the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Others ((2007) 4 SCC 54) was rendered. Shri M. Pathros Mathai also relied on the decision in Subhash Chand Jain v. Ist Additional District And Sessions Judge, Saharanpur And Others (AIR 1989 WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 11 SC 1070). Therein, the Court took the view that the employees who had been appointed before 1968 were entitled to be governed in the matter of seniority on the basis of the length of service and the Rule introduced in 1968 by which confirmation was made, the basis to determine that inter se seniority could not affect their rights. Thus, the proposition canvassed is that a vested right cannot be taken away retrospectively. In the same vein, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in R. S. Ajara And Others v. State of Gujarat and Others ((1997) 3 SCC 641). 7. Shri S. Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.2302/09 would also essentially adopt the contentions of Shri K. Jaju Babu. He would further contend that in the facts of this case, the respondents are estopped from invoking the amendment against the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner had fared exceedingly well in the examination, but was not called for the interview. The reason given was that though the petitioner was practising as an Advocate on the relevant day, subsequently he came to be WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 12 selected as a Munsiff. He approached this Court by filing W.P. (C).No.34161/08. Though the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, a Division Bench of this Court allowed his Writ Appeal in the decision in Muhammed Raees v. High Court of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT 916). He would draw our attention to the aforesaid Judgment. He would contend that the amendment came into force on 12.6.2008. It was certainly open to the respondents to have set up the amendment against him in the earlier Writ Petition, he contends. They failed to do so. The plea is, therefore, barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata, he contends. The High Court allowed him to participate in the interview. He would point out that the petitioner has secured 424 marks and he stood first. He would submit that in such circumstances, the official respondents are estopped from invoking the amendment to the Rule to defeat his cause. He would submit that the petitioner by mere reason of being below thirtyfive years of age should not be eliminated, having regard to the remarkable performance that he had shown. WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 13 8. Shri T. Sethumadhavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.3543/09 would contend that the petitioner in this case was not over-aged, going by the Rule as it stood prior to the amendment. He would also contend that the amendment cannot be invoked to defeat his rights as it stood crystallized on the date on which he applied. He would further point out that under Rule 10(c) of the KS & SSR which is applicable, he was entitled to relaxation of three years being a member of the OBC. He would also point out that the petitioner will not get another chance and this is the last chance, which he has, to be considered for the post of District Judge. He does not dispute that the petitioner was fortynine years of age as on 1.1.2007. 9. Shri Jacob P. Alex, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.4810/09 adopted the contentions of Shri Jaju Babu. 10. Shri K. R. B. Kaimal, learned senior counsel appearing for the High Court of Kerala would address the following contentions: WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 14 Entry (41) of List II of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution provides for legislative power with the State Legislature as follows: “41. State Public Services; State Public Service Commission.” Prior to the enactment of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968, Article 309 of the Constitution provided for power with the State to frame law governing the conditions of service of a District Judge also and in the absence of a law made by the State Legislature, it was open to the Government to frame Rules. It was accordingly that the Rules have been framed in the year 1961. Subsequently, the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 came to be enacted. The Act, inter alia, provides power with the Government of Kerala to frame Rules. The Judicial Service is one of the Services mentioned in the Act. Thus, he would submit that the Government of Kerala, after 1968 had power to frame Rules under the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. He would submit that the Shetty Commission specifically recommended the prescription of minimum age of thirtyfive for WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 15 appointment as District Judge, as much as it recommended the maximum age of fortyfive for the said post. The matter came up before the Apex Court and the Apex Court accepted the recommendations, except certain recommendations which were either not accepted or accepted in the modified form. As far as prescription of minimum age and maximum age to the post of District Judge was concerned, he would submit that it cannot be in the region of dispute that the recommendations stood accepted. He would submit that the Judgment of the Apex Court was declaratory in nature. In other words, he would submit that after the Judgment of the Apex Court, unless the person is between the age of thirtyfive and fortyfive, he cannot be appointed as District Judge. It may be true, he contends, that on account of some delay in passing the amendment, the formal amendment to the Rules was gazetted only on 12.6.2008. He would submit that in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court, the petitioners cannot have any right to seek the relief they have sought. No doubt, he does not have quarrel with the proposition WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 16 enunciated in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court relating to the effect of an amendment made during the course of a selection process. 11. Shri Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 12 in W.P.(C).No. 2282/09 would raise the following submissions: He would submit that the principle enunciated in the decisions of the Apex Court relied on by the petitioners may not apply to the facts of this case. He would submit that this Court is concerned in these cases with selection to the post of District Judge. The selection is sought to be made by direct recruitment. The appointees would be holding upon appointment, the post of District Judge, an entry post. He would contend that Article 233 of the Constitution specifically deals with the matter of appointment to the post of District Judge. Article 233(1) provides for appointment by the Government in consultation with the High Court. He would submit that in such circumstances, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court by WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 17 which the recommendations of the Shetty Commission regarding the minimum and maximum age stood accepted and what is more, the Government of Kerala stood directed to implement the same with the outer time limit of 30.9.2002 by which compliance reports were to be filed by the States as well as another, being fixed, if the High Court and the Government of Kerala decided that the minimum age should be thirtyfive and the maximum age should be fortyfive, an inroad could not be made into the same under any Rule framed by the Government. In this context, he relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Bihar And Another v. Bal Mukund Sah And Others ((2000) 4 SCC 640). In the same, the Apex Court was dealing with the law made by the Legislature of the State of Bihar by which it provided for reservation for appointment to the post of District Judge. There was no consultation with the High Court. We will deal with it in detail later on. He would submit that in view of the Judgment in the All India judges' case, these Writ Petitions are not maintainable. Shri Elvin Peter also would WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 18 submit that there is no merit in the contention based on Article 233(2) of the Constitution, namely the complaint that the prescription of the age limit is ultra vires the eligibility condition declared in the same. Learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Sreekumar v. High Court of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 88). He would further contend that what the petitioners are seeking in these cases, is a writ of mandamus. He would point out that writ of mandamus may not be issued in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the All India Judges' case (2002 (4) SCC 247). In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. And Another ((1996) 4 SCC 622). 12. Shri P. C. Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th and 26th respondents in W.P.(C). No. 2282/09 would adopt the contentions raised by the respondents. He would further rely on the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ajith v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) KLT 1044). Therein, the learned Single Judge was concerned with the WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 19 appointment to the post