- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
(2.) The appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 21.01.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2665/2008 by which the petitioner's petition was found to have no merit. However, it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that if the respondent authorities proposes to issue fresh advertisement for filling up the vacant posts, then they may also consider the desirability of making appropriate provision for relaxation of age in respect of those candidates who had applied for and were found successful in the written tests pursuant to the earlier advertisement of 2005, if such candidates file fresh applications, if any.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the written test was conducted and the petitioners were declared successful in that written examination which was conducted on 07.05.2006. Thereafter, a typing test was also held from 26.03.2007 to 29.03.2007. The petitioners appeared in the typing test but thereafter, final result was not declared by the respondent authority. However, instead of declaring the result and giving appointment to the selected candidates the respondents published an advertisement declaring the selection process in question cancelled and fresh applications were invited for the posts.;