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. 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 2012, W.P. No.27674/2012 was filed before this Court as a Public Interest Litigation. The said petition was disposed of on 21.06.2016 as per Annexure –C. Aggrieved by the order passed in the Public Interest Litigation, SLP No.29245/2016 and connected cases were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, certain interim directions were issued. But, in the meanwhile, in the year 2018, Notification dated 23.02.2018 was issued, wherein, the private respondents were promoted to the I.A.S. cadre on the strength of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court subject to its final orders. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and so also the Review Petition by order dated 27.02.2019. 8. Subsequently, CCC No.673-676/2019, 90/2019 and connected petitions have been filed before this Court and they are pending. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and so also the Review Petition by order dated 27.02.2019. 8. Subsequently, CCC No.673-676/2019, 90/2019 and connected petitions have been filed before this Court and they are pending. During the pendency of those proceedings on 15.04.2019, a list was published by the KPSC in compliance of this Court’s order dated 21.06.2016. Being aggrieved by the said list, certain private respondents approached the CAT and an interim order was granted, staying the operation of the Notification issued by the KPSC dated 25.01.2018. On 22.08.2019 one more Notification came to be issued by the KPSC during the pendency of the Contempt Petition before this Court. In the original application filed before the CAT, interim order was granted and on 20.12.2019 CAT transferred the original applications to the KAT with an observation that interim orders granted by it would continue till the KAT took a decision on merits. The said order (Annexure-K) is challenged in this writ petition. 9. In the interregnum, writ petition 1st No.50238/2019 was filed by Ramappa Hatti, petitioner herein before this Court, challenging the proceedings before the CAT instituted by some of the private respondents herein. The said writ petition was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and was disposed of on 29.11.2019 directing the CAT to pass appropriate orders regarding maintainability of the original applications filed before it on or before 10.12.2019 and until then the interim order granted by the CAT to be in operation i.e., till the decision on the issue of maintainability of the original applications was decided by the CAT. It was also directed that while considering the aspect of the maintainability of the applications before the CAT, the said Tribunal should also hear and dispose the applications pending for vacation of the interim order. It is in fact, pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 at Annexure –K was passed which is assailed in this writ petition. The said Writ Petition challenged the authority and jurisdiction of the CAT, Bengaluru to decide the proceedings in O.A.No.170/00437/2019 on the file of the CAT. It is in fact, pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 at Annexure –K was passed which is assailed in this writ petition. The said Writ Petition challenged the authority and jurisdiction of the CAT, Bengaluru to decide the proceedings in O.A.No.170/00437/2019 on the file of the CAT. The grievance of the petitioner in that Writ Petition was that respondents No.6 to 16 therein whose appointment to the post of KAS Officers, Gazetted Probationers (Group-A), being the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.No.27674/2012 and connected matters had suffered an adverse order dated 21.06.2016. According to the petitioner therein, CAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid proceedings. By the said order, CAT transferred the matter to the KAT, directing its Registry to send the whole file to the KAT for it to determine the issue. The interim order passed by it was however continued till the KAT took a decision on merits. 10. However, the KAT was of the opinion that the CAT had no jurisdiction to transfer the original applications to the KAT and hence directed that the said applications have to be re-transferred to the CAT. Subsequently, CAT passed another order dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure –N), which is also assailed in this writ petition. In fact, the said order was passed on a memo filed by the certain original applicants before the CAT seeking withdrawal of their applications, which were before the CAT. The CAT, while considering the said memo opined that the earlier declaration made by it to the effect that it was the KAT which had the jurisdiction to consider the matter was maintained and the jurisdiction of the CAT was also retained. The CAT further ordered that the applications filed by the original applicants, were to be dismissed for non-prosecution and accordingly dismissed the original applications filed by certain private respondents herein. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order dated 05.03.2020 at Annexure –N is totally ambiguous that earlier the CAT had transferred the matter to the KAT on the premise that the KAT has jurisdiction to consider the applications but in the same breath, could not have observed that, the CAT had retained its jurisdiction to consider the original applications. He next submitted that if the applications were dismissed for non-prosecution, then all interim orders passed by the CAT stood vacated and therefore, said position ought to have been given effect to by the State Government inasmuch as the list published by the KPSC ought to be given effect to. He, therefore submitted that the impugned order of the CAT may be quashed and appropriate consequential directions may be issued in this writ petition. 12. As already noted, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 12 fairly contended that the order of the CAT was passed on the memo filed by the applicants before the CAT seeking withdrawal of their applications, so that they could pursue their matters before the KAT and that the matters are now pending before the KAT where there is an order of status-quo passed by it. 13. It is necessary to observe that this Writ Petition has indeed a checkered history. A Notification was issued by the State Government on 04.02.1998 to select 415 candidates for Group-A and B posts. The Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘KPSC’ for short) received thousands of applications which were scrutinized. The candidates who were eligible, appeared for the preliminary examination and the main examination and the results were declared. There were applications filed on various grounds before the KAT in Application Nos.7901-7908/2001, alleging that there were certain irregularities in conduct of the examination for the recruitment of Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts against the Notification dated 09.03.1998. The KAT allowed the applications and ordered for fresh evaluation. The KPSC challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.Nos.12548-12589/2002 by order dated 11.10.2002. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Petition in part, but, did not agree for reevaluation of all the candidates. The matter was taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which upheld the High Court’s order vide order dated 06.10.2005. This Court had issued certain directions for redoing a fresh moderation/random review of the optional subjects, which direction was sustained by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thereafter, Review Petitions and Curative Petitions filed were also dismissed. Thereafter, W.P. No.346/2007 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court alleging that moderation and scaling as per the orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.12548-12589/2002 was not done. But, the said Writ Petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court. 14. Thereafter, Review Petitions and Curative Petitions filed were also dismissed. Thereafter, W.P. No.346/2007 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court alleging that moderation and scaling as per the orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.12548-12589/2002 was not done. But, the said Writ Petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court. 14. In the meanwhile, application Nos.5290-5592/2008 was filed before the KAT, which was dismissed. But, some other persons filed Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.27674/2012. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 21.06.2016 issuing certain directions. Against the said order SLP No.28245/2016 was filed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the petitioner’s application before the CAT, to be promoted to the IAS cadre subject to further adjudication and on 23.02.2018, the State Government promoted the applicant to the IAS cadre, but in the interregnum there were other litigations and other developments inasmuch as CCC Nos.673-676/2019, 90/2019 and connected Contempt Petitions were filed before this Court wherein orders were passed on 16.04.2019 and 25.04.2019. In the said Contempt Petitions, it was brought to the notice of this Court that on 15.04.2019 the CAT had passed interim orders, even when the directions of this Court which were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, were sought to be implemented in respect of five officers who were applicants before the CAT. It was also stated before this Court that the SLPs filed by the said officers have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, those officers could not have approached the CAT seeking an interim relief, contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.27674/2012 disposed in 2016, which were confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is in the aforesaid background, that the issue regarding maintainability of the applications before the CAT arose and this Court in W.P.50238/2019 dated 29.11.2019 had directed that the said issue has been disposed, being considered and answered in the first instance. 15. In the meanwhile writ petition No.50238/2019, this court categorically directed the CAT to consider the aspect of maintainability of the applications and observed that the interim order granted by the CAT was to be in operation only till the issue of maintainability of the applications was decided by the CAT. At the same time, the applications for vacating interim orders was also been considered. At the same time, the applications for vacating interim orders was also been considered. The operative directions in writ petition No.50238/2019 disposed of on 29.11.2019 reads as under: “5. In this background, this Court is of the considered opinion that at the first instance, the CAT instead of passing one line order that it has right to hear the said applications, shall have to look into the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 21.06.2016 and thereafter shall pass appropriate order regarding maintainability of the applications before the CAT. The same shall be done on or before 10.12.2019. Till such time, there shall not be further deliberations with reference to merits of the case. Interim order granted by the CAT shall be in operation until the maintainability of the applications is decided. While considering the maintainability, the CAT shall also hear and dispose of the applications pending for vacation of the interim order. With such observations, this writ petition is disposed of.” (underlining by us). It is pursuant to the said directions that the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 was passed by the CAT (Annexure –K). The relevant portion of which reads as under: “130. We therefore decide to transfer the matter to the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Registry is directed to send the whole files to the Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for it to determine the issue by Registered Parcel/ Acknowledgement Due forthwith. In the interregnum, interim orders we have issued in this regard will continue till the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal takes a decision on merit.” (underlining by us) 16. From the above, it is noted that this Court had categorically directed the CAT to decide on the maintainability of the applications filed by the private respondents herein in the first instance. But in an extremely prolix order of 508 pages the CAT instead of deciding as to ‘whether the applications are maintainable before it or not’, in a categorical manner has ultimately at paragraph No.130 has observed as above. 17. In other words, the CAT decided to transfer the cases to the KAT, the implication being, it was the KAT which had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon those applications. But, while doing so, interim orders passed by it i.e., the CAT were ordered to be continued till KAT took decision in the matter. 17. In other words, the CAT decided to transfer the cases to the KAT, the implication being, it was the KAT which had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon those applications. But, while doing so, interim orders passed by it i.e., the CAT were ordered to be continued till KAT took decision in the matter. It is a matter of record that the KAT re-transferred the applications to the CAT by observing that the CAT could not have exercised any power or jurisdiction to transfer the original applications to the KAT. It is on the basis of the aforesaid decisions of the CAT, and the KAT respectively, which led to the original applicants before the CAT to ultimately file a memo seeking withdrawal of their applications. This was because they had approached KAT by filing separate applications in respect of the very same grievance and issues, seeking the very same prayers in application No.146/2020. On their memo, seeking withdrawal, the CAT passed impugned order dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure -N). The operative portion of which at paragraph -14 reads as under: “14. However, as a matter of jurisdictional responsibility, this Court cannot extinguish the jurisdiction in any manner. Therefore, we issue the following orders: 1) The judicial declaration issued earlier are retained: 2) The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is retained. 3) We will consider that the applicant wishes to not to further prosecute the matter and therefore for non-prosecution we dismiss all these OAs.” On reading of the above, it is apparent that the CAT is not clear and categorical, vis-à-vis, its jurisdiction to entertain the original applications. 18. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the applicants before the CAT have now separately approached the KAT for redressal of their grievances. Thus, it is clear that the applicants who initially approached CAT have now approached the KAT. In the circumstances, it is implied that the applicants are no longer seeking any relief before CAT and have opted to seek redressal of their grievances before the KAT. Therefore, they filed memo seeking withdrawal of their cases before the CAT. All that the CAT has to do was, to pass a simple order on the said memo. Instead, CAT passed a lengthy order in which it has once again touched upon the jurisdiction of the CAT and has confounded the earlier confusion. Therefore, they filed memo seeking withdrawal of their cases before the CAT. All that the CAT has to do was, to pass a simple order on the said memo. Instead, CAT passed a lengthy order in which it has once again touched upon the jurisdiction of the CAT and has confounded the earlier confusion. While dismissing the applications for non-prosecution, there is no order passed on the memo as such. Instead the order impugned at Annexure –N was passed. 19. But, what we can gather from the order of the CAT is that, on one hand, it approved the withdrawal of the original applications filed by the applicants before it and has also taken note of the fact that the said applicants had approached the KAT, but, nevertheless, it observed that its jurisdiction is retained. When the applicants themselves sought withdrawal of their applications filed before the CAT on the premise that, it was the KAT which has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon their grievances, all that ought to have been done was simply to pass an order on the said memo seeking withdrawal of the original applications. 20. As already noted, paragraph -14 of the order of the CAT extracted above, is only confounding the earlier confusion created by it. In the circumstances, the order at Annexure -K dated 20.12.2019, as well as the order dated 05.03.2020 at Annexure -N are liable to be quashed and are quashed, lest once again, the entire confusion is replicated in some other matters by the CAT. It is further clarified that since the original applicants who approached the CAT, have now approached the KAT, they cannot dither and they are now estopped from approaching the CAT unless ordered otherwise by a superior forum. On the basis of the memo, the original applicants have categorically stated that they would seek adjudication of their disputes before the KAT. Hence, as far as these applicants are concerned, the CAT has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute. 21. It is noted that Annexure-B is a Notification issued by the KPSC on 25.01.2019, which was the revised select list as per the orders of this Court dated 21.06.2016 passed in W.P.No.27674/2012 and connected cases, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 11.04.2018. 22. Annexure –B is a note dated 25.01.2019. 21. It is noted that Annexure-B is a Notification issued by the KPSC on 25.01.2019, which was the revised select list as per the orders of this Court dated 21.06.2016 passed in W.P.No.27674/2012 and connected cases, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 11.04.2018. 22. Annexure –B is a note dated 25.01.2019. Annexure-B1 is also a Notification dated 22.08.2019 issued by the KPSC pursuant to direction No.3 issued by this Court in W.P.No.27674/2014 and connected cases disposed of on 21.06.2016. The said direction No.3 reads as under: “(3) The KSPC shall take into consideration the 91 answer scripts which forms part of excess of 10% of the revalued paper and give effect to the order of the High Court dated 11th October 2002 in W.P.No.12548-589/2002 and the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6172-6222/2005 vide Order dated 6th October, 2015.” 23. It is in the context of the above Notifications that the Contempt Petition CCC No.90/2019 and connected cases were filed seeking implementation of the directions of this Court and the KPSC had sought to comply with the same by issuance of the aforesaid Notifications, which were brought to the notice of this Court on 16.04.2019. It is on the issuance of the said Notifications, during the pendency of the Contempt Petitions before this Court that the applicants approached the CAT. The CAT which ultimately held that the KAT had a jurisdiction to dispose the applications could not have continued the interim order initially granted. It is also not forthcoming as to how KAT issued an order of status-quo when the Contempt Petitions are pending before this Court, seeking implementation of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.27674/2012 disposed on 21.06.2016. Hence, the petitioners are at liberty to seek implementation of Annexure-B and B1. 24. Further interim orders passed by the CAT stand vacated. In view of vacating the interim orders passed by the CAT, status-quo ante would stand restored. We say so because during the pendency of the contempt petition before this Court the KPSC issued fresh Notifications at Annexure -B and B1. 24. Further interim orders passed by the CAT stand vacated. In view of vacating the interim orders passed by the CAT, status-quo ante would stand restored. We say so because during the pendency of the contempt petition before this Court the KPSC issued fresh Notifications at Annexure -B and B1. But, some of the private respondents, who sought to assail the same had approached the CAT instead of KAT leading to an entire rigmarole concerning jurisdiction of the said Tribunals, while at the same time being the beneficiary of the interim order granted by the CAT, even though, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applications. Writ appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. As the main petition is disposed of, I.A. Nos. 2/2020 and 3/2020 also stand disposed.