EBRAHIM THONIKKARA Vs. NISHA S VIJAYAN; STATE OF KERALA; DIRECTORATE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS; REPRESENTED, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; KERALA SECRETARY, PATTOM,PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; KARUNYAM, KARUNAKARAN U; BEENA RANI K S; BABY JAYASREE K G ; MANOJKUMAR C ;

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is against Ext.P3 interim order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in M.A.No.2752/2016 in O.A.No.892/2016; whereby the earlier interim orders passed by the Tribunal on the relevant dates came to be varied. As per the said modification, benefit was given only to one of the two different groups coming in 'List A' of Annexures.A1 and A2 lists prepared by the PSC for advice of candidates to the post of DEO, unfortunately leaving the other eligible group in 'List B' to be treated on similar terms based on the relevant ratio fixed as per the Service Rules.

(2.) Heard Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Nair Palakkat, the learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the 11th respondent, Mr.Hood, the learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.

(3.) Despite the completion of service of notice by special messenger, the 1st respondent/applicant in the O.A. has not turned up for hearing. Same is the position with regard to respondents 7, 8 and 9. The notice sent to the 6th respondent has been returned stating that 'the door was lying locked'. But considering the nature of contentions raised, the pleadings and prayers in the O.A. and the absence of any challenge from the part of the 6th respondent who was the 5th respondent in the O.A. as to the various interim orders already passed, this Court does not find it necessary to await completion of service of notice in respect of the 6th respondent in this O.P. to have the matter finalized, more so when, the O.A. is still pending consideration before the Tribunal.