Arun, J.

The petitioners are the applicants in O.A(Ekm)No.2106 of

2017 filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which

culminated in Ext P2 order of the Tribunal. O.A No.2106 of 2017

was taken up along with O.A.Nos.800 of 2018, 1133 of 2018 and

1272 of 2018. The petitioners herein, the applicants in

O.A.No.2106 of 2017, are persons appointed under the

compassionate employment scheme to supernumerary posts in

the Police Department. The applicants in O.A.Nos.800, 1133 and

1278 of 2018 are candidates included in the rank list for the post

of Lower Division Clerks in various departments, brought into

force by the Public Service Commission w.e.f 31.3.2015. In

O.A.No.2106 of 2017 the petitioners have sought for a

declaration that they were eligible to be regularised in service

with effect from their actual date of entry in service and for a

direction to the respondents to regularise their services with

effect from the respective date of their entry in service. The

applicants in the three connected Original Applications had

OP(KAT).No. 25 of 2019 4

approached the Tribunal for a direction to the respondents to

report the vacancies in the Police Department and for a

consequential direction to the Public Service Commission to

advice their names for appointment, based on their seniority in

the rank list. The specific case of those applicants was that the

Public Service Commission was not issuing advises against the

vacancies reported from the Police Department due to the

pendency of O.A.(Ekm) No.2106 of 2017. By the common order,

which is impugned in this Original Petition, the Tribunal found

that the supernumerary appointees could be regularised which

arose during the relevant period and could not claim

regularisation with effect from the date of their appointment

against the supernumerary post. That, the vacancies available for

regularisation of supernumerary hands shall be computed

invoking the 5% ratio and that it shall be reckoned as to whether

regularisation of supernumerary hands in any year from 2012

had exceeded the 5% ratio and if so, to carry out appropriate

adjustment against the subsequent years, without affecting those

who had already been regularised. With respect to the claim of

the Original Applicants in the other cases, whose names had been

included in the ranked list, the Public Service Commission was

OP(KAT).No. 25 of 2019 5

directed to take immediate step to advice candidates from the

ranked list, provided the vacancies were reported before the

expiry of the ranked list on 31.3.2018. It is therefore, clear that

if any relief is granted to the petitioners herein, that would have

an impact on the relief granted by the Tribunal to the applicants

in the connected Original Applications. Therefore, the instant

Original Petition challenging only the order in O.A.No.2106 of

2017 and that too without the applicants in the other Original

Applications being on the party array, is not maintainable.

2. Even though we found the Original Petition to be not

maintainable for the reason mentioned above, we thought it fit to

consider as to whether there is any merit in the challenge against

Ext P2 order of the Tribunal. The brief facts, which led to the

filing of the Original Application are as follows: -

The applicants, who are presently employed as Lower

Division Clerk in the Police Department, were appointed under

the Compassionate Employment Scheme formulated by the

Government as per G.O(P) No.12/19/P & ARD dated 24.5.1999.

In the absence of vacancies, appointments under the

Compassionate Employment Scheme was not being affected to

the Government departments, including the Police Department,

OP(KAT).No. 25 of 2019 6

though the appointments were duly sanctioned by the

Government. To tide over the crisis, the Government, as per

G.O(Ms) 174/2012/GAD dated 6.7.2012, created 549

supernumerary posts in var