ORDER :

The petitioners have sought the following prayers in this writ petition:

(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction quashing the orders dated 20.12.2019 in OA No. O.A.170/961/2019, O.A.170/437/ 2019, O.A. No.170/438/2019, O.A.No. 170/439/ 019, O.A.No.170/ 440/2019, O.A.No.,170/41/019, O.A.No.170/48/2019, O.A.No. 170/ 449/2019, O.A.No.170/962/2019, O.A.No. 170/963/2019, O.A.No. 170/964/2019 produced at Annexure K, in so far as the petitioners are concerned as the same is erroneous and the same is ultra-virus and is not in conformity with the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to grant all consequential benefits consequent upon quashing the above orders with a further direction, directing them to place the petitioners in the post/cadres held by Respondents No.6 to 16 consequent on quashing the orders at Annexure K to meet the ends of justice.

c) Grant the petitioner the cost of this proceedings; and

d) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and expedient to pass in the circumstances of the case.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1, respondent Nos. 6 and 12 and learned counsel for respondent No. 13 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 11, 13, 15 and 16 through video conference and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 12 submitted that since these respondents had earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), have now filed fresh applications before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘KAT’ for the sake of convenience). These writ petitions may not survive for further consideration and they may be disposed of.

4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the orders of the CAT may have to be quashed as well as the interim directions of the said Tribunal may have to be vacated as the CAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the original applications filed by some of the private respondents; nevertheless, the said Tribunal (CAT) has issued certain directions, which are not in accordance with law. Hence, while disposing all the writ petition those directions or observations may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this writ petition has a checkered history. That initially order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’ for the sake of convenience) was challenged in the writ petition. But, subsequently additional prayers have been sought on account of the nature of the directions and observations made by the CAT in the subsequent order.

6. Briefly stated, the facts are, the petitioners herein were selected and appointed for the post of Gazetted Probationers, by the Karnataka State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘KPSC’ for short). The KPSC had issued Notification dated 09.03.1998 inviting applications for recruitment of 415 Gazetted Probationers for filling up the posts of Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’. That there were certain irregularities committed by the candidate and the KPSC in conducting examinations and certain applications were filed before the KAT in the year 2001. Those applications were allowed and fresh evaluation of the answer scripts was ordered. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the KPSC and others had filed Writ Petition No.12548-589/2002 before this Court, which were disposed of by order dated 11.10.2002. The KPSC approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. Leave was granted but Civil Appeal Nos. 6172-6222/2005 and connected matters were dismissed. The review petitions filed by the KPSC were also dismissed, so also the Curative Petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. Subsequently, in the year 20