C.S. Rajan, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext. P-4 order dated 1-1-1998 passed by the first respondent by which the service of the third respondent who was to retire on 31-12-1997 was extended till 31-3-1998 as a special case. Accordingly, the fourth respondent passed Ext. P-5 order implementing Ext. P-3 order. The two grounds of attack against Exts. P-4 and P-5 are (1) that the above orders have been passed in flagrant violation of Exts. P-2 and P-3 instructions issued by the 6th respondent; and (2) that the extension of service granted to the third respondent is malafide because he is closely related to the fifth respondent.

2. Sri. K. Ramakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the various instructions issued by the sixth respondent are intended to be obeyed by the first respondent and not to be violated. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the present extension granted to the third respondent is in clear violation of the above instructions and is liable to be interfered with.

3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General stressed that the present order granting extension of service to the third respondent will no way affect the directions