NICKY K. XAVIER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in WP(C).No.5663 of 2016, who was the 5th respondent in WP(C).No.12994 of 2016 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the common judgment dtd. 16/11/2019 of a learned Single Judge.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these Writ Appeals are as follows:

(3.) The learned Single Judge found that the expression "earlier" mentioned in Ext.P25 notification was only a concession that was given to those who had submitted applications based on Ext.P24 notification, which was the one immediately prior to Ext.P25 notification. It was also found that the candidates who were within the age limit as on the last date fixed for the receipt of the application based on the previous notification (Ext.P24) alone were exempted from preferring fresh applications in response to Ext.P25 notification. The contention of the appellant was therefore rejected, and his Writ Petition was dismissed. As a consequence, WP(C).No.12994 of 2016 preferred by a rival candidate was disposed by directing the KFRI to finalise the selection from among the candidates who were within the age limit as on the last date fixed in Ext.P24 notification and make appointment to the post without any delay.