JUDGMENT : C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. 1. The State and its officers filed the captioned original petitions on being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, on different dates, in certain original applications and one Transferred Application, carrying similar issues. To be precise, O.P(KAT) No.401/2017 is filed against the order dated 2.9.2014 in O.A.No.109/2014, O.P(KAT) No.378/2017 is filed against the order dated 15.6.2017 in O.A.No.1938/2013, O.P(KAT) No.473/2017 is filed against the order dated 10.07.2015 in T.A.No.6355/2012, O.P(KAT) No.209/2018 is filed against the order dated 2.6.2017 in O.A.No.78/2015, O.P(KAT) No.45/2017 is filed against the order dated 29.08.2016 in O.A.No.1484/2015, O.P(KAT) No.46/2017 is filed against the order dated 29.8.2016 in O.A.No.1793/2015 and O.P(KAT) No.69/2017 is filed against the order dated 21.11.2016 in O.A.No.1455/2015. The respondent/applicant in O.P(KAT) No.401/2017 and O.P(KAT) No.209/2018 is one and the same. The said respondent was constrained to file O.A.No.78/2015 from which O.P.(KAT) No.209/2018 arises as the petitioners did not disburse the salary pursuant to the order in O.A.No.109/2014. In such circumstances, we will deal with the claims and contentions in O.P(KAT) No.209/2018 after considering the other original petitions. Except O.P.(KAT) No.209/2018, virtually, the same question calls for consideration in all the other original petitions. The respondents in the said original petitions viz., the applicants were appointed under the Collegiate Education Department in different Government Colleges by the Principals concerned, either as Sanitation worker or Sweeper, on different dates. However, the precise case of the respondents/applicants is that though they were shown to have been appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State Subordinate Services Rules (for short, 'KS & SSR') for a period of 179 days from the date of joining pursuant to the respective orders, their appointment is regular inasmuch as they were virtually recruited regularly through employment exchange after following the regular process of selection. Category 4 (b) (ii) of Rule 5 (a) of the Special Rules of Last Grade & Part Time Contingent Services, hereinafter referred for brevity 'the Special Rules', prescribe direct recruitment through employment exchange in the absence of suitable hands under item (i) that provides for promotion of part time contingent employees from the common seniority list prepared by the District Collector on revenue district wise basis. Except the respondents/applicants in O.P.(KAT) No.46/2017, all the others approached the Tribunal essentially seeking regularisation of their services. Except the respondents/applicants in O.P.(KAT) No.46/2017, all the others approached the Tribunal essentially seeking regularisation of their services. They also sought for quashment of the orders of their appointment to the extent it limited the period of appointment to 179 days. 2. The petitioners herein/official respondents before the Tribunal countered the claims and contentions of the applicants/respondents herein, stoutly contending that all of them were appointed purely on provisional basis invoking the power under Rule 9(a) (i) of Part II KS & SSR for a period of 179 days from the date of joining. It is also contended that a perusal of the amendment brought to Rule 3 of the Special Rules would reveal that by such amendment Rule 9 under Part II KS & SSR was also made applicable to the last grade service. It is their submission that taking into account the contingency for effecting temporary appointment and as permitted under Rule 3 of the Special Rules, the authority competent invoked the power under Rule 9(a)(i) Part II KS & SSR and appointed the respondents/applicants specifically ordering that the appointment would be only for a period of 179 days and such appointment would not confer any right for regular appointment or regularisation. 3. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions in the light of the relevant provisions of law and the position of law settled by this Court as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court and ultimately, as per the orders impugned, held that though the period of appointments of the respondents/applicants was confined to 179 days and such orders were issued under Rule 9(a) (i) Part II KS & SSR, the appointments are virtually regular in nature. In short, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents/applicants were appointed purely on temporary basis invoking Rule 9(a)(i) Part II KS & SSR for a period of 179 days was repelled and ordered to treat the appointment of the respondents/applicants as regular. Evidently, the Tribunal arrived at such conclusion and finding based on the decisions of this Court, which will be adverted to a little later and taking into account the fact that in terms of the provisions under Rule 5 category 4(b)(ii), of the Special Rules recruitment through PSC is also provided as one of the regular methods of appointment to the last grade service. The post of Sweeper and Sanitation Worker to which the applicants/respondents herein were appointed, are included in category 4(a) under Rule (1) of the Special Rules. A scanning of the orders passed in O.A No.109/2014 dated 2.9.2014 and T.A.No.6355/2012 dated 10.7.2015 would reveal that even after holding thus, the Tribunal had virtually granted liberty to the Principals concerned to review the order of appointments of the respondents herein/applicants in those O.As by looking into the question whether any eligible and willing hands in the part-time contingent service were available in the list prepared by the District Collector concerned for promotion as Sanitation Worker or Sweeper. For the purpose of effecting such review, viz., as to to the availability of such part-time contingent employees for promotion to those posts, it was ordered that date of occurrence of vacancy shall be taken as the date of reporting of vacancy to the Employment Exchange. In fact, it is the date on which requisition was made to the employment exchange. In case of availability of such hands on such date, it was further ordered that the respondent/applicant concerned could be retrenched in case of non-availability of any other vacancy to accommodate him or her when the district is taken as a unit. If there were no such hands, the applicants are to be treated as appointed regularly and in such eventuality they are entitled to all consequential benefits, it was further ordered. In the order in O.A.No.1938/13 it was held that from the statement filed by the official respondents therein it was evident that no such eligible and willing part-time contingent employees were available for promotion. In the other O.As, virtually, the Tribunal held that the orders of appointment of the applicants/the respondents in the O.Ps are regular and they are entitled to all consequential benefits. It is in such circumstances that the official respondents therein filed the above mentioned original petitions challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal. Since common issues and questions arise for consideration in the captioned original petitions, they were heard jointly and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents in all the original petitions. 5. Since common issues and questions arise for consideration in the captioned original petitions, they were heard jointly and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents in all the original petitions. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the respondents herein/applicants would also admit the fact that they were initially appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II KS & SSR for a period of 179 days. It is contended in such circumstances that they cannot be heard to contend that they were not appointed purely on provisional basis and at any rate, they could not claim that they were appointed on regular basis merely because recruitment through employment exchange is also prescribed as a method of appointment in the absence of eligible and willing hands among the part time contingent employees. At the same time, the learned counsel for the respondents herein/applicants contended that the fact that the respondents/applicants were appointed by direct recruitment through employment exchange and at the time of their appointment eligible and willing hands were not available among the part-time contingent employees would go to show that the appointment was in fact, on regular basis though it was described by the authorities as temporary solely with a view to confine the period of appointment to 179 days and to deny them further benefits. The further contention is that when in the absence of suitable hands for promotion among part-time employees from a common seniority list prepared by the District Collector direct recruitment through employment exchange is effected by circulation through different exchanges under the District Employment Exchange and not solely by sponsoring from the local employment exchange, the appointment cannot be said to be purely temporary. In other words, according to them, in such circumstances, in the light of the decisions of this Court in Sreekala v. Superintendent, Oldage Home [ 2008 (2) KLT 13 ] and Sub Inspector of Police v. Girija [ 2010 (2) KLT 428 ], the appointments could only be treated as regular and the facts that the order is styled as one made under Rule 9(a) (i) of Part II KS & SSR and the period was confined only to 179 days would not and could not denude the nature of their appointments and in the light of the said decisions, despite such description, their appointments have to be treated as regular. 6. In the light of the rival contentions, we are of the considered view that certain provisions and decisions are worthy to be referred. Rule 1 category 4(a) of the Special Rules would reveal that the post of Sweeper and Sanitation Workers are included in the last grade service. True that a perusal of Rule 3 of the Special Rules would reveal that it provides for effecting temporary appointment invoking the power under Rule 9, to be precise, Rule 9 (a)(i) of Part II, KS & SSR. Rule (3) of the Special Rules reads thus:- "3. Applicability of General Rules--Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules other than rules 3, 4, 7, 9, 10(c), 14, 15, 16, 17, 18(h) and 27 shall not apply to the service." 7. Category 4 (b) of Rule 5(a) of the Special Rules is also extractible in this context and it reads thus: 5. Appointment – (a) Appointment to the various categories or post shall be made as follows:- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Category 4: x x x x x x x x x (b) In respect of posts in Departments other than those mentioned in the opening paragraph of rule 4,- (i) by promotion of Part-time contingent employees from the common seniority list prepared by the District Collectors on Revenue District-wise basis, (ii) in the absence of suitable hands under item (i) above, by direct recruitment through Employment Exchange. 8. 8. A perusal of the said afore-extracted provision would reveal that in the absence of suitable hands under item (i) direct recruitment through Employment Exchange is permissible under the Rules. In the context of the contentions it is also worthy to refer to Rule 4 of the Special Rules, more particularly, note under sub-rule (c) thereof, under the caption Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment other Departments. This requires advertence to decide the question as to who is the authority competent to effect regular appointment in respect of the posts concerned. Bearing in mind the aforesaid provisions and the decisions referred hereinbefore we will consider the question whether the order impugned invites interference. 9. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the appointments of all the respondents herein/applicants were purely provisional and it was made under Rule 9 (a) (i) of Part II of KS & SSR. Controverting the said contention and seeking for sustainment of the order passed by the Tribunal it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that though the orders were issued in purported invocation of the power under Rule 9 (a) (i) of Part II of KS & SSR and that the period was confined to 179 days from the date of joining, in the light of the decision of this Court in Sreekala's case (supra) and Girija's case (supra) the question whether the appointments were, in troth, regular, is to be considered. In short, the contention is that the fact that it was made under Rule 9 (a) (i) of Part II KS & SSR and that the period was confined only to 179 days are irrelevant for the purpose of considering the real nature of their appointment as the provisions regulating recruitment to the post of Sweeper and Sanitation workers under the Special Rules viz., category 4(b) (ii) of Rule 5 (a) provides for direct recruitment through Employment Exchange in the absence of suitable hands under item no (i) among part-time contingent employees. 10. Certainly, a perusal of category 4(b) (ii) of Rule 5 (a) of the Special Rules would reveal that direct recruitment through Employment Exchange is also a regular method of appointment in the absence of suitable hands under item (i) of category 4(b) of Rule 5(a) of the Special Rules. 10. Certainly, a perusal of category 4(b) (ii) of Rule 5 (a) of the Special Rules would reveal that direct recruitment through Employment Exchange is also a regular method of appointment in the absence of suitable hands under item (i) of category 4(b) of Rule 5(a) of the Special Rules. Item (i) therein provides for promotion of part time contingent employees from the common seniority list prepared by the District Collectors on Revenue District-wise basis provided they are willing to be promoted. This position is not at all disputed and in fact, it is indisputable in view of the provisions under the Special Rules. Therefore, essentially the question is whether the appointment was effected in the absence of suitable hands under item (i). The Tribunal in the absence of materials to arrive at a finding on that issue cautiously issued directions as can be seen from the impugned orders. True that except in the orders in O.A 109/2014 and T.A 6355/2012 no such specific directions were issued in the other Original Applications. In the order in O.A 1938/2013 there is a finding that no such eligible and willing hands were available for promotion in the category of part-time contingent employees. In the orders in the other OAs there is no such discussion or specific finding and at the same time, there is declaration to the effect that the appointments of the applicants concerned shall be treated as regular and also direction for disbursement of consequential benefits. As noticed hereinbefore while allowing the Original Applications and ordering to treat the appointments of the applicants in O.A No.109/2014 and T.A No.6355/2012 as regular, the Tribunal had taken cautious measure to protect the right of eligible persons if any, under item (i) by granting liberty to the Principals concerned to review such appointments if, as on the date of requisition to the Employment Exchange, eligible and willing hands were available in the seniority list maintained by the District Collector. In the contextual situation it is only relevant to refer to the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A No.6355 of 2012. In para 4 therein the Tribunal ordered thus: In view of the above settled position, the applicants are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the applicants as regular. In the contextual situation it is only relevant to refer to the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A No.6355 of 2012. In para 4 therein the Tribunal ordered thus: In view of the above settled position, the applicants are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat the appointment of the applicants as regular. Of course, their appointment can be reviewed, if as on the date of requisition to the Employment Exchange, there were eligible and willing hands in the seniority list maintained by the District Collector for appointment to those vacancies. If there were no such hands, the applicants shall be treated as having been appointed regularly, and are entitled to all consequential benefits. 11. Thus it is obvious that even while holding that the appointments of the respondents in the above OPs/applicants as regular, the Tribunal has protected the interest of persons belonging item no.(i) viz., persons belonging to part-time contingent service eligible and willing on the date of requisition to the Employment Exchange which ultimately culminated in the appointments of the respondents herein. 12. True that the very case of the petitioners herein is that the very appointment of the respondents/applicants could not be treated as regular as they were appointed purely on temporary basis invoking the power under Rule 9(a) (i) of Part II KS & SSR. There can be no dispute with respect to the fact that in all the orders of appointment issued to the respondents Rule 9(a) (i) of Part II KS & SSR has been quoted. It is also true that as per the orders of appointment the period of their appointment was also confined to 179 days from the date of joining the post on the strength of orders issued to them. As noticed hereinbefore, the question is whether those factors by themselves could decide the real nature of the appointment of the respondents. We have already taken note of the fact that direct recruitment through Employment Exchange is also one of the regular methods of appointment and of course, it is permissible to be invoked only in the absence of candidates in item (i) of category 4(b) of Rule 5(a) of the Special Rules. Going by the decisions of this Court in Sreekala's case (supra) and Girija's case (supra) the decisive factor is whether the requisition was circulated among all the exchanges in the Revenue District concerned. Going by the decisions of this Court in Sreekala's case (supra) and Girija's case (supra) the decisive factor is whether the requisition was circulated among all the exchanges in the Revenue District concerned. True that the question who has issued the order of appointment is also relevant in that context. In regard to that question it is apposite to refer to Annexure A1 of Ext P1 in OP(KAT) 473/2017. Reference No.2 in Annexure A1 would reveal the nature of the reference made on 9.11.2009 as follows: Order No.C1-501/09, 502/09 and 503/09 dated 9.11.2009 of the District Employment Officer, Kozhikode. (Emphasis added) 13. The opening sentence of Annexure A1 is also relevant in this context and it reads thus: The following candidates introduced by the Divisional Employment Officer, Kozhikode are selected for appointment as Sweeper and Sanitation workers in this College vide read cited above. (Emphasis added) 14. Thus it can be seen that the requisition was not made to any local Employment Exchange and in fact, it was made to the District Employment Officer necessarily to circulate it among all the Exchanges within the Kozhikode Revenue District. The learned Government Pleader would submit that it cannot be the determinative factor to decide the question whether the appointment was effected on a regular basis or not. The said contention is founded on Annexure A10. Annexure A10 is GO.Rt.No.101/88/LBR dated 18.1.1988. Clause (2) (iii) of Annexure A10 reads thus:- Vacancies which are purely provisional (as certified by the employer)-leave vacancies or daily rated employment or other specific duration employment not exceeding for three months-District-wise circulation. 15. It is relying on the afore-quoted clause (2) (iii) of Annexure A10 that the learned Government Pleader advanced the aforesaid contention. But in this context it is to be noted that it is a Government Order dated 18.1.1988. In Sreekala's case (supra) virtually the Division Bench of this Court held that even though the appointment to a post in the last grade service through Employment Exchange is one of the methods of appointment there could still be provisional appointment to that post through Employment Exchange. In the contextual situation paragraph 9 of Sreekala's case (supra) is extractible and it reads thus:- Thus, going by the Special Rules, appointment through Employment Exchange is one of the methods prescribed for the post of Cook. In the contextual situation paragraph 9 of Sreekala's case (supra) is extractible and it reads thus:- Thus, going by the Special Rules, appointment through Employment Exchange is one of the methods prescribed for the post of Cook. But, whether the appellant was appointed on a regular basis or provisionally, will depend upon the facts of the case. The appointment order says that the appointment is temporary and for a period of 179 days. The mention in an appointment order that it is provisional or temporary, may not be conclusive. Even in the case of regular appointments, it is stated by some appointing authorities that the appointment is temporary. But, in this case, we notice that as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the procedure followed was that of provisional appointment and not of regular appointment. The candidates from all the Employment Exchanges in the Kottayam district were not sponsored. The appointment order was not issued by the Head of the Department, who is the appointing authority, but by the Superintendent of the Old Age Home, Ithithanam, who is only the Head of the office/institution concerned. The unit of appointment being the District, the Head of the institution can never make regular appointment. Further, the rules of reservation were also not followed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that her appointment is regular, cannot be accepted. (Emphasis added) 16. A scanning of paragraph 9 of Sreekala's decision would reveal that this Court in unambiguous terms held that the mere mention in an appointment order that the appointment is provisional or temporary would not be conclusive. This Court went on to observe that even in case of regular appointment some appointing authorities would state in the order that the appointment is temporary. But at the same time, in Sreekala's case (supra) this Court took note of the fact that the procedure which was followed for effecting the appointment was the one to be followed for effecting provisional appointment and not for regular appointment. In other words, this Court found that candidates from all the Employment Exchange in the District concerned were not sponsored. That apart, the order of appointment was not issued by the Head of the Department, who is the appointing authority. The position was made more clear in Girija's case (supra) in which one among us (Justice C.T.Ravikumar) was also a party. That apart, the order of appointment was not issued by the Head of the Department, who is the appointing authority. The position was made more clear in Girija's case (supra) in which one among us (Justice C.T.Ravikumar) was also a party. It is to be noted that the decision in Girija's case (supra) was rendered after referring to Sreekala's case (supra). A conjoint reading of paragraphs 3 to 5 would reveal that following the decision in Sreekala's case (supra) this Court took the view that virtually, twin factors would and should decide the question whether an appointment to a post in the Last Grade Service where the regular method of appointment is also through employment exchange, could be treated as regular despite it being described in the order of appointment only as temporary. Firstly, the requisition should have been circulated to all the Employment Exchanges in the Revenue District concerned. In other words, if the requisition was made only to the local Employment Exchange and candidates were sponsored without circulating the same to all the Employment Exchanges in the District concerned, appointment can only be temporary. Who issued the appointment order is the other determinative factor for deciding the nature of appointment. 17. The learned Government Pleader would submit that it is sub-rule (a) of Rule 4 of the Special Rules under the caption Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment other Departments which is relevant in that context whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that note under sub-rule (c) thereof is the relevant provision in that regard. 18. The table under Rule 4 of the Special Rules provides a list of appointing authorities in respect of office or institution. Going by sub-rule (a) of Rule 4 Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment other Departments in respect of offices of Heads of Departments, the Head of the Department concerned or any other officer having jurisdiction over the office concerned authorized in this behalf by the Head of the Department would be the appointing authority. In the case on hand, the appointments were not effected in offices of the Heads of the Department. Admittedly, the appointments were effected by Principals of different Government Colleges in the Colleges concerned. In the case on hand, the appointments were not effected in offices of the Heads of the Department. Admittedly, the appointments were effected by Principals of different Government Colleges in the Colleges concerned. In such circumstances, the Note under sub-rule (c) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment other Departments would become relevant and it reads thus:- In the case of Departments where there are no District officers having jurisdiction over the Institutions/Offices in the District, the appointing authority shall be the Head of the Institution concerned. (This was inserted as per G.O.(P) No.271/80 GAD dated 3.7.1980 and published as SRO No.649/80 in Kerala Gazette No.30 dated 22nd July, 1980). (Emphasis added) 19. Contextually, it is appropriate to refer to paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in WP(C) 16239/2010 which was re-numbered as T.A No.6355/2012 and against the order of which OP(KAT) No.473/2017 is filed. The second respondent therein is the second petitioner in OP (KAT) No.473/2017. The relevant recital in paragraph 7 of the said counter affidavit reads as follows:- The department of Collegiate Education has no District Officers having jurisdiction over the institutions/officers in the District and hence the appointing authority of part time contingent employee is the Head of Institution/Colleges concerned. (Emphasis added) 20. The 'Special Rules' applies to last grade and part time contingent service employees. Hence, the afore-extracted 'Note' would be applicable to employees in last grade service as well. The said recital in para 7 would thus go to show that in the Department of Collegiate Education there are no District level Officers having jurisdiction over the institutions/officers in the District. In all the cases at hand the respondents were appointed in the Department of Collegiate Education and they were all appointed by the Principal of the college concerned. In the light of the said recital the petitioners herein cannot be heard to contend that the District level Officers are available and therefore, note under sub-rule (c) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment other Departments is inapplicable. In the light of the said recital the petitioners herein cannot be heard to contend that the District level Officers are available and therefore, note under sub-rule (c) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment other Departments is inapplicable. In such circumstances and in the light of the afore-extracted provision we unhesitatingly hold that the competent appointing authority of last grade servants and part-time contingent employees under the Collegiate Education is the Head of the Institution/colleges concerned as there are no District Officers having jurisdiction in the said Department. In the cases on hand, it is a common case that the orders of appointments were issued by the Principal of the college concerned. Thus, the determinant factors would reveal that merely because in the orders of appointment it was shown that the appointment is made under Rule 9(a) (i) of Part II KS & SSR and that the period of appointment would be 179 days from the date of joining they got no significance at all, in the cases on hand. But at the same time, we have no hesitation to hold that those factors also could not be the crucial factor to hold that the appointments of the respondents were effected on regular basis and that question is still dependent upon the availability or otherwise of suitable and willing hands were available in item (i) in category 4(b) of Rule 5(a) of the Special Rules, on date of requisition to the Employment Exchange. In that regard no reliable materials are available on record. Hence, we ween that very rightly the Tribunal had granted liberty to the respondents to consider the said question as per Orders in OA 109/2014 dated 2.9.2014 and in T.A 6355/2012 dated 10.7.2015 even while holding that the appointment of the respondents are regular in nature. Hence, availing the liberty, what is to be considered is whether as on the date of the requisition which culminated in the appointment of the respondents part time contingent employees suitable to be promoted to the afore-said posts, in other words, eligible and willing candidates are available in that category. Going by the impugned order in O.A and T.A in the absence of any other vacancies for accommodating the respondents concerned he or she could be discharged. Going by the impugned order in O.A and T.A in the absence of any other vacancies for accommodating the respondents concerned he or she could be discharged. But in all other circumstances, in the light of the decision the appointments are to be treated as regular. We are of the considered view that the said liberty and consequential direction and declaration in the orders in OA 109/2014 dated 2.9.2014 and in T.A 6355/2012 dated 10.7.2015 are to be made applicable in respect of the other cases, as well, as we do not find any relevant material available on record to answer that crucial aspect. Hence it is ordered accordingly. In the light of the aforesaid factors we do not find any reason to hold that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are against the provisions or against the settled position of law by this Court. It is also to be noted that in order to ensure that the rightful claims of persons, if any, in item (i) of category 4(b) of Rule 5 (a) of the Special Rules are also protected the Tribunal had issued appropriate directions, as referred to hereinbefore in the orders in OA No.109/2014 and T.A No.6355/2012 and we made it applicable to the other cases as well where such directions are lacking. When such liberty is made available to the petitioners we do not find any reason for them to feel aggrieved against the directions of the Tribunal. In such circumstances, no further interference is required with the orders in the other O.As as well. 21. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent in OP(KAT) 401/2017 and OP(KAT) 209/2018 is one and the same. Earlier she got an order in her favour from the Tribunal in OA 109/2014 dated 2.9.2014. The non-implementation of that order and non-disbursement of salary constrained her to file OA No.78/2015. The order passed thereon on 2.6.2017 led to the filing of OP(KAT) 209/2018. In fact, prior to the filing of OP(KAT) 209/2018 against the order dated 2.6.2017 in OA No.78/2015, the respondents in OA 109/2014 filed OP(KAT) 401/2017 as an abundant caution. In the light of the decision in the other matters this aspect is of no specific relevance. 22. In the said circumstances, OP(KAT) Nos. In fact, prior to the filing of OP(KAT) 209/2018 against the order dated 2.6.2017 in OA No.78/2015, the respondents in OA 109/2014 filed OP(KAT) 401/2017 as an abundant caution. In the light of the decision in the other matters this aspect is of no specific relevance. 22. In the said circumstances, OP(KAT) Nos. 401 and 473 of 2017 are dismissed and the other Original Petitions are dismissed subject to the modification specifically mentioned hereinbefore with regard to the liberty to review the appointments of the respondents to the limited extent. It is made clear that right for consequential benefits of the petitioner in OP(KAT) 209/2018 will be subject to the consideration to be made in the light of the action to be taken pursuant to the order in OA 109/2014, virtually, confirmed by us.