JUDGMENT

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

Ext.P3 verdict passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 964 of 2013 is put to challenge by the respondents 4 and 5 in the O.A., who were in fact impleaded in a representative capacity.

2. The sum and substance of the contention is that the Tribunal has unfortunately omitted to consider the scope of amendment to Rule 21 of Part II, KS & SSR, but for placing reliance on the verdict passed inAppukuttan Nair vs. State of Kerala [ 1990 (2) KLT 806 ], which was prior to the amendment brought into force from 16.12.1992.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the third respondent herein and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State/Department.

4. The factual matrix revealed from the proceedings is that the applicants were working as Deputy Tahsildars and they became aggrieved of Annexures A7 and A8 orders issued by the Government, whereby 'en bloc' extension of probation was ordered by the Government in the case of unqualified seniors, who had not cleared the mandatory test/departmental test. Annexures A2 and A4 select lists were published giving placement to such unqualified seniors