Ansari C.S., Anoop T.P., Bindu V, Mini.R v. State of Kerala, Director of Scheduled Caste Development, Kerala Public Service Commission, Naveen Chandran N, Chakaradar.R, Honey T., Anil Kumar.A, Bobby Mathew

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** **FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/30TH POUSHA, 1938** ## **OP(KAT).No. 10 of 2017 (Z)** ## **--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1377/2015 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 02-11-2016** **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** **1. ANSARI C.S. AGED 39 YEARS, ALFAJR, KADALI NAGAR, AZHIKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 564.** ## **2. ANOOP T.P** - **AGED 37 YEARS, CHATHURATTIL HOUSE, KARIPPADAM PO, THALAYOLAPPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM 686 605.** ## **3. BINDU V** - **AGED 45 YEARS, UTHAMAPURAM, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA 688 561.** ## **4. MINI.R** **AGED 45 YEARS, KAVERI SADANAM, TEMPLE ROAD, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA 688 561.** **BY ADVS.DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.T.BIJU SRI.K.P.KESAVAN NAIR SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 AND APPLICANT IN OA :** **-------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** ## **OP(KAT).No. 10 of 2017 (Z)** ## **2. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT, DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT, AYYANKALI BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 003.** **3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 004.** ## **4. NAVEEN CHANDRAN N** **SCDO -II, PARAKKADAVU BLOCK PANCHAYAT, KURUMASSERY 683 579, RESIDING AT 8/307, R.G.RAI ROAD, SOUTH CHERLAI, MATTTANCHERY, COCHIN 682 002. KERALA** **5. CHAKARADAR.R, SCDO -II, TANUR BLOCK PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM - 676 302, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, ARAMPADOM, THATTAMANGALAM PO, PALAKKAD 678 102, KERALA.** ## **6. HONEY T.** **HEAD CLERK, KOLLAM DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOLLAM 691 013, RESIDING AT DHANYA, SREENIVASAPURAM PO, VARKALA 695 145, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA.** ## **7. ANIL KUMAR.A** **HEAD CLERK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM 676 505, RESIDING AT PADALIKADU HOUSE, KOTTEKKADU, PALAKKAD 678 732. KERALA** ## **8. BOBBY MATHEW** **S/O.M.MATHEW, AGED 33 YEARS, VILAYIL HOUSE, KEEKOZHOOR PO, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA 689 672.** **R4-R7 BY ADV. SMT.T.THASMI** **R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-01-2017, ALONG WITH OP(KAT)NOS.11/2017, 17/2017 & 18/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(KAT).No. 10 of 2017 (Z) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1377 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **ANNEXURE A1- TRUE COPY OF RANKED LIST NO.533/12/SSVI, CATEGORY NO.24/2009 PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR THE POST OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRADE II IN THE SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTEMNT AND BROUGHT INTO FORCE W.E.F.12/11/2012.** **ANNEXURE A2- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR KERALA SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT SUBORDINATE SERVICE** **ANNEXURE A3- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 4.6.2014 SUBMITTED BY SMT. SOUMYA S BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A4- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESTT.A3/14965/14 DATED 19.6.2014 OF THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO ONE SMT.SOUMYA S.** **ANNEXURE A5- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.8.2014 SUBMITTED BY SRI. VARGHESE M BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A6- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESTT.A3/22063/14 DATED 12.9.2014 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO ONE SRI. VARGHESE M.** **ANNEXURE A7- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART PUBLISHED BY THE PSC IN ITS WEBSITE.** **ANNEXURE A8- TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.16956/C2/2013/SCSTDD DATED 27.7.2013.** **ANNEXURE A9- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1815/2013/SCSTDD DATED 6.12.2013** **ANNEXURE A10- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.463/2013/SCSTDD DATED 23.3.2013** **ANNEXURE A11- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2015 IN O.A.(EKM)785/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL** **ANNEXURE A12- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1073/2015/SCSTDD DATED 4.7.2015** **ANNEXURE A13- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1925/2015/SCSTDD DATED 25.11.2015** **OP(KAT).No. 10 of 2017 (Z)** **EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 14.3.2016 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN OA NO. 1337 OF 2015** **EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.11.2016 IN OA NO. 1377 OF 2015 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **NIL** //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE SHG/ ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** **O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20[th] day of January, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Ravikumar,J.** These original petitions carry challenge against the common order dated 2.11.2016 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1377/2015 and 2049/2015. O.P.(KAT)No.17/2017 is filed by respondents 4 to 7 in O.A.No.1377/2015 and O.P.(KAT)No.18/2015 is filed by respondents 4 to 6 in O.A.No.2049/2015. O.P. (KAT)No.10/2017 is filed against the order in O.A.No. 1377/2015 and the petitioners were not parties to the said original application. O.P.(KAT)No.11/2017 is filed against the order in O.A.No.2049/2015 and the petitioners herein were not parties in O.A.No.2049/2015 before the Tribunal. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioners/party respondents in the said original applications against the said order dated 2.11.2016 pertains only to the extent it directed to assess the number of vacancies available to be reported to the PSC O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 2 in the post of Scheduled Caste Development Officers Grade-II in the Scheduled Castes Development Department and intimate the same to the PSC within the time stipulated thereunder for effecting advice and virtually holding that for that purpose the number of vacancies available against direct recruitment quota shall be reckoned from the date of Annexure A13 viz. 25.11.2015. Their contention is that in the light of Annexure A9 of Ext.P1 in O.P.(KAT)No.17/2017 and Annexure A11 of Ext.P1 therein, the crucial date for the aforesaid purpose ought to have been taken as 6.12.2013 instead of 25.11.2015. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PSC and also the learned Government Pleader. While the petitioners contend that the Tribunal went wrong in identifying the crucial date for reckoning the vacancies available for direct recruitment through PSC, to the aforesaid post, as the date of Annexure A13 viz., 25.11.2015 the respondents resisted the contention and submitted that O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 3 the petitioners who did not have any grievance against the action in upholding Annexure-A13 cannot legally raise a grievance against the consequential direction of the Tribunal to reckon the vacancies available for direct recruitment from the date of Annexure-A13. 3. As noticed hereinbefore the petitioners in O.P. (KAT)Nos.10/2017 and 11/2017 were not parties either in O.A.No. 1377/2015 or in O.A.No.2049/2015. In fact, they too got the same grievance against the directions given by the Tribunal as per the common order dated 2.11.2016 in the said original applications. In such circumstances, normally this court will not entertain such original petitions filed by a third party under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Tribunal and usually they will be relegated to resort to appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal itself against the order, at the first instance. Such is the procedure virtually to be followed in terms of the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in **Ramachandran v. Food Corporation of India** O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 4 **[1989 (2) KLT 112]** . But at the same time we are of the considered view that in view of the peculiar circumstances involved in these cases disposal of OP (KAT) Nos.10/2017 and 11/2017 in that manner would be a futility in view of the fact that O.P.(KAT)Nos.17/2017 and 18/2017 are filed by similarly situated persons who moved the original applications from which all the captioned original petitions arose. In view of the fact that the petitioners in O.P.(KAT) No.17/2017 are similarly situated to the petitioners in O.P. (KAT) No.10/2017 and 11/2017 and they had unsuccessfully moved O.A.Nos.1377/2015 and 2049/2015 before the Tribunal and OP (KAT) Nos.10/2017 and 11/2017 also arise from O.A.Nos.1377/2015 and 2029/2015 relegating the petitioners in OP (KAT) Nos.10/2017 and 11/2017 to such a remedy, would be an absolute futility especially keeping the other two original petitions pending here. In such circumstances, no party would be aggrieved by but, only benefited if all the original petitions are jointly heard and disposed of by a common judgment. Therefore, we are O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 5 proceeding with consideration of all the appeals jointly and in this judgment hereafter the documents are being referred to in accordance with the order they were marked in O.P.(KAT)No.17/2017 unless otherwise specifically mentioned. 4. The issue involved in the original applications which culminated in the aforesaid common order dated 2.11.2016 by the Tribunal pertains to the direct recruitment through PSC to the post of Scheduled Castes Development Officer Grade II in the Scheduled Castes Development Department. The Special Rules relating appointment to the said post viz. Kerala Scheduled Castes Development Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2010 has been produced as Annexure A2. Indisputably, going by the Rules, 50% of the vacancies in the cadre of Scheduled Castes Development Officer Grade II are to be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% vacancies are to be filled up by appointment by transfer from ministerial staff. The PSC has issued a notification for the purpose of filling O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 6 up of vacancies of Scheduled Castes Development Officer Grade II in the department by direct recruitment evidently as against the vacancies available for direct recruitment. It is common case that the cadre strength of Scheduled Castes Development Officers Grade-II of Kerala Scheduled Castes Development Subordinate Services is 107 and therefore hitherto 50% vacancies available for both the categories were identified with reference to the cadre strength. After the due selection process, Annexure A1 ranked list was brought into force by the PSC on 12.11.2012. During the currency of the said ranked list, according to the petitioners, Government took a conscious decision as per Annexure A9 dated 6.12.2013 not to effect direct recruitment through PSC after effecting appointments against the notified vacancies in the said post, till amendment is brought to the Special Rules limiting the direct recruitment to the post of Scheduled Castes Development Officer Grade II only in the absence of eligible hands in the feeder category. In the meanwhile, the PSC O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 7 advised 11 candidates for appointment on 16.6.2014. In fact, those vacancies were reported to the PSC on 29.12.2012. The Government refused to appoint 11 candidates advised by the PSC based on Annexure A8 letter and & A9 order. As noticed hereinbefore, as per Ext.A9 Government took a decision not to effect direct recruitment through PSC after effecting appointment against the notified vacancies in the post of Scheduled Castes Development Officers Grade-II till the recruitment rules are amended in such a manner to limit direct recruitment to the post of Scheduled Castes Development Officer Grade II only in the absence of eligible hands in the feeder category. Earlier, Annexure A10 dated 23.3.2013 was passed on a representation pursuant to an order for its consideration by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2311/2012. Annexure A10 would also reveal that Government took the decision to amend the Kerala Scheduled Castes Development Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2010 to the effect that direct recruitment to the category of Scheduled Caste O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 8 Development Officer Grade -II need be resorted to, only in the contingency of non-availability of qualified hands from the feeder categories. Thereupon, Annexure A10 was challenged by some of the rank holders in Annexure A1 in O.A.[EKM]-785/2014. It was disposed of by Annexure A11 order. Annexure A9 referred hereinbefore was marked as Annexure-A6 in O.A.[EKM]-785/2014. As per Annexure A11 order the Tribunal held that the impugned Annexure A9 order viz., Annexure -A6 therein, would have only prospective operation and consequently directed vacancies which arose upto 6.12.2013 to be filled up in the light of the unamended Special Rules. We may hasten to add that there was only a proposal to amend the Special Rules and it is an admitted case that till date Annexure A2 Special Rules have not been amended despite the proposal to bring about an amendment. Therefore, it is only a proposed amendment. Subsequently Government have issued Annexure A12 order dated 4.7.2015 whereby Ext.P9 order dated 6.12.2013 was cancelled. After such cancellation the Government have 9 O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 issued Annexure A13 order dated 25.11.2015. It carries a conscious decision not to fill up the vacancies in the post of Scheduled Castes Development Officer Grade II by direct recruitment through PSC till amendment has been brought to the Kerala Scheduled Castes Development Subordinate Service Special Rule limiting direct recruitment to the said post only in the contingency of non-availability of eligible hands in the feeder categories. 5. The main challenge in O.A.No.1377/2015 and O.A.No.2049/2015 was against Annexure A13 order. As noticed hereinbefore, after considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal upheld Annexure A13 order and issued a further direction to the 2[nd] respondent to assess the number of vacancies to be filled up by PSC hands with reference to the date of Annexure A13 i.e. from 25.11.2015. Evidently, the petitioners in the captioned original petitions while accepting and acknowledging the decision of the Tribunal upholding Annexure A13 raising grievance only with respect to the further direction to assess the number of O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 10 vacancies to be filled up by PSC hands by reckoning the relevant date as 25.11.2015 viz the date of Annexure A13 order. According to the petitioners in the light of Annexure A9 and the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram in Annexure A11 such date ought to have been 6.12.2013 instead of 25.11.2015. Virtually, sustainability of the said contention alone is required to be gone into the in these Original Petitions. 6. The core contention of the petitioners is that the Tribunal ought to have found that in the light of Annexure A9 and its earlier order in Annexure A11 vacancies in the post of Scheduled Caste Development Officer Grade-II occurred upto 6.12.2013 i.e. the date of Annexure A9 alone would be available for direct recruitment through PSC. It is contended by the learned counsel that when Government took a conscious decision not to fill up vacancies in the light of the existing Special Rules owing to its proposal to amend the same the Tribunal ought not have directed the department to assess the vacancies available for direct O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 11 recruitment with effect from 25.11.2015, the date of Annexure A13. True that the Tribunal took note of Annexure A9 and evidently its earlier decision and consequential direction in Annexure A11 were based on Annexure A9. But, it is relevant to note that it was actually that circumstances occurred subsequent to the cancellation of Annexure A9 that led to the filing of O.A.Nos.1377/2015 and 2049/2015. A perusal of the impugned common order would reveal that the Tribunal, indeed, took note of its earlier decision in Annexure A11 and upon finding that such a decision was taken in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Dr. Ramulu and Anr. v. Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao & Ors. [AIR 1997 SC 1803]** applied its ratio to the position available based on Annexure A13. Evidently the impugned common order dated 2.11.2016 was passed by the Tribunal based on **Dr. Ramulu's** decision (supra). While the petitioners challenge the direction of the Tribunal to assess the vacancies with reference to the date of Annexure A13 and contend that it ought to have been O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 12 with reference to the date in Annexure A9 the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC contend that there is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the directions given by the Tribunal, in the light of Annexure A13. Thus it is evident that the very author of Annexures A12 and A13 viz., the Government did not raise any grievance with respect to Ext.P3 common order of the Tribunal and the learned Government Pleader submitted that the direction of the Tribunal is in tune with the conscious decision and it is also perfectly in conformity with the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Dr. Ramulu's** case. Virtually that is the stand of the PSC as well. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Dr. Ramulu's** case. Going by **Dr. Ramulu'** s case pending amendment to the Rules if the Government took a conscious decision not to effect direct recruitment following the existing rules in the matter of appointment to a particular post that is not to be interfered with. Essentially that dictum was applied by the O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 13 Tribunal while passing Annexure A11 taking into account Annexure A9. Indisputably, Annexure A9 was cancelled by the Government themselves as per Annexure A12. Annexure A12 is dated 4.7.2015. Later, Government issued Annexure A13 order dated 25.11.2015 in tune with its earlier decision in Annexure A12 order dated 4.7.2015. Though Annexure A9 was cancelled as per Annexure A12 and thereafter, took a conscious decision not to fill up vacancies through PSC by direct recruitment in terms of Annexure A2 Special Rules till an amendment is brought to it limiting direct recruitment only in the contingency of non-availability of eligible persons in the feeder categories as per Annexure A13 the petitioners herein did not challenge Annexure A12 cancelling Annexure A9. There can be no doubt that Annexure A9 had not conferred any indefeasible right on inservice persons like the petitioners to claim appointment against vacancies otherwise available for direct recruitment. It was only a policy decision of the Government not to make direct recruitment through PSC to the post of O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 14 Scheduled Caste Development Officer Grade-II till the proposed amendment is brought out in Annexure A2 Special Rules. Chances for promotion are not protected by the Constitution and the right available is only consideration for promotion in accordance with the relevant rules governing promotion. Even on the date of Annexure A9 appointment by transfer from ministerial staff was permissible only against 50% in view of Annexure A2 Special Rules. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni [AIR 1981 SC 1990] and in S.S.Bola and others v. B.D.Sardana and Others [1997 8 SCC 522 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that chances of promotion of Government Servant are not a condition of service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to change in the conditions of service. It was further held that a right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of promotion are not. In the light of the said decisions, how can the petitioners say that the nonreckoning of the relevant date for assessing the number of 15 O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 vacancies for direct recruitment from 6.12.2013 to 25.11.1995 will affect their chances of promotion and therefore, illegal. It is to be noted that what was actually decided even under Annexure A13 is not to effect direct recruitment through PSC till the proposed amendment to make direct recruitment only in the contingency of nonavailability of eligible persons in the feeder categories. It is only a proposal and a policy decision in that regard. Such circumstances will not and cannot, confer any indefeasible right on persons like the petitioners. In the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India reported in 1983 (1) SCC 305 (SC.). Going by the dictum therein a policy decision of the Government could be reviewed/altered/modified by an executive instruction. In such circumstances we are at a loss to understand how the petitioners could successfully challenge the impugned common order whereby the Tribunal only issued directions after upholding Annexure A13 to assess the vacancies O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 16 available for direct recruitment with reference to the date of Annexure A13, by applying the ratio of the decision in **Dr. Ramulu's** case. After the cancellation of Annexure A9 order vide Annexure A12 there is no force in the contention of the petitioners to say that the assessment of vacancies by the respondents should be with reference to the date of Annexure A9. Annexure A9 was already cancelled by the Government as per Annexure A12. In such circumstances the conscious decision to not to fill up vacancies by direct recruitment through PSC in terms of Annexure A2 Rules was taken only as per Annexure A13 dated 25.11.2015. When that be so, we do not find any reason to hold that the Tribunal went wrong in issuing a direction to assess the vacancies pending the proposed amendment with reference to the vacancies available as on 25.11.2015. True that the learned counsel was also attempted to canvass another position. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Annexure A13 order was issued with reference to reporting of 11 vacancies on 27.12.2012. Therefore O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 17 according to the petitioners Annexure A13 should not be understood to have one issued cancelling Annexure A9 order. But at the same time the basic order with reference to the cancellation or otherwise of Annexure A9 is Annexure A12 order dated 4.7.2015. In Annexure A12 dated 4.7.2015 Annexure A9 order is referred to as item No.4. In Annexure A12 it was ordered thus: The Government examined the matter in detail and hereby cancel the letter read as 3rd paper above and the Government Order read as 4th paper above. (emphasis added) In such circumstances the contention of the petitioners that Annexure A9 was not cancelled by the Government in its entirety and Annexure A13 pertains only with reference to the 11 vacancies reported on 27.12.2012 cannot be countenanced. It is also to be noted that the Government did not challenge the common order passed by the Tribunal dated 2.11.2016. In the light of the discussion as above, it is evident that the petitioners cannot have a legal grievance against O.P.(KAT)Nos.10, 11, 17 & 18 of 2017 18 Annexure A13 or against the order of the Tribunal dated 2.11.2016 that it took away their chances of promotion or appointment by transfer. In fact, as already noted, they did not challenge the order of the Tribunal upholding Annexure A13. We do not find any merit in these original petitions and therefore they are liable to fail. Accordingly, the Original Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** **JUDGE** Sd/- **K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE** //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/