JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna S., J. This original petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.2290 of 2023 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘the Tribunal’ for short), by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. 2. The petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman who suffered 30%disability while on duty. He belongs to Hindu Nadar Community. The petitioner was rank No.7 in Annexure A1 ranked list dated 04.03.2021 for the selection of High School Assistant (Social Science)-Tamil Medium in Idukki District, published by the 3 rd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ in short). Soon after the publication of Annexure A1 ranked list, O.A.No.805 of 2021 was filed before the Tribunal, which was finally ended in dismissal on 15.09.2023. The petitioner alleges that due to the pendency of the said original application, the Department was not keen on calculating and reporting the vacancies, and the vacancies arose then and there were managed by engaging temporary hands/guest teachers. After constant efforts, the petitioner got information that though the cadre strength is 25, only 18 teachers were appointed through KPSC, and out of which, many have obtained interdistrict/interdepartmental transfer, deputation and promotion, etc. The 2 nd respondent is duty-bound to report at least 7 existing vacancies and remaining also after finding out the dearth. The petitioner states that even after the dismissal of O.A.No.805 of 2021, all vacancies in the 23 Schools, in which the post of High School Assistant (Social Science)-Tamil Medium are sanctioned, were not reported to the KPSC. According to the petitioner, although there are only 23 Schools, the cadre strength of the High School Assistant (Social Science)-Tamil Medium is 25, as two Schools, namely GVHS, Munnar, and PHSS, Vandipperiyar, have two posts each. 2.1. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that the 2 nd respondent has taken a wrong stand that the cadre strength is 23 and the vacancies available in the Department amount to 6, of which 3 are already reported to KPSC, but not advised due to non- availability of candidates in the respective turns. As per Annexure A3 letter dated 24.07.2023 received from the 2 nd respondent, one of the three remaining vacancies has been reported to the KPSC, and one is set apart for by transfer appointment. As per Annexure A3 letter dated 24.07.2023 received from the 2 nd respondent, one of the three remaining vacancies has been reported to the KPSC, and one is set apart for by transfer appointment. Decision is yet to be taken regarding the remaining one post, which arose from 01.04.2023 due to retirement of the incumbent. The petitioner contended that as there are no eligible candidates for by transfer appointment, the said vacancy also has to be reported for direct recruitment. Another incumbent, Sri.Thankaraj, is working on deputation, and the said vacancy is not reported so far. When the actual cadre strength is considered as 25, the total number of vacancies to be reported is 8. By producing Annexure A4 appointment chart, the petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the last vacancy reported was on 30.03.2023, i.e., four months before Annexure A3 reply and it can be presumed that the single vacancy referred in Annexure A4, which the 1 st respondent claims to have reported as a single one out of the three kept separately from the batch of 6. From Annexure A4, it can be seen that the 5 th rank holder, namely Elizabeth Rani L., in the main list of Annexure A1 ranked list is advised in MR1-OC, and 3 turns are pending over including MR1 Hindu Nadar (on 18.04.2023). So even in the worst-case scenario, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get advice and be appointed in the third vacancy. 3. The petitioner prayed in the original application to issue a direction to the 2 nd respondent to report 8 substantive vacancies to the 3 rd respondent and to effect the appointments from Annexure A1 ranked list in a time frame to be fixed by the Tribunal. 4. The 2 nd respondent filed a reply statement dated 03.02.2024 in the original application. To that reply statement, the petitioner filed a re-joinder dated 12.02.2024. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent filed an additional reply statement dated 31.07.2024, to which the petitioner filed a re-joinder dated 19.08.2024, producing therewith Annexures A13 to A14(a) documents. The 2 nd respondent again filed a statement dated 09.10.2024, to which the petitioner filed a re-joinder dated 18.11.2024, producing therewith Annexures A15 and A16 documents. The 3 rd and the 4 th respondents filed a reply statement dated nil. 5. The 2 nd respondent again filed a statement dated 09.10.2024, to which the petitioner filed a re-joinder dated 18.11.2024, producing therewith Annexures A15 and A16 documents. The 3 rd and the 4 th respondents filed a reply statement dated nil. 5. On 29.02.2024, the Tribunal passed an interim order as under: “It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the ranked list is expiring on 3.3.2024. Learned Government Pleader seeks further time for filing additional statement as regards the contentions raised by the applicant with regard to the existence of substantive vacancies. Considering the fact that the ranked list is expiring on 3.3.2024 there will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to report 8 vacancies to the 4 th respondent before 5 p.m on 1.3.2024. It is made clear that the above order is purely provisional subject to the further orders from this Tribunal. No advice and appointment shall be made against those vacancies without getting orders from this Tribunal.” 6. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. as per the impugned order dated 21.03.2025. Paragraph 13 and the last paragraph of that order read thus: “13. Annexure A1 ranked list expired 03.03.2024. On 29.02.2024, this Tribunal had directed the 2 nd respondent to report 8 vacancies on provisional basis. It is not in dispute that the cadre strength of post of HSA (Social Science) in Tamil Medium, Idukki District is 25. The 2 nd respondent has admitted the existence of vacancies in the posts of HSA (Social Science) in Tamil Medium, Idukki District. Though 5 vacancies were reported to Public Service Commission, 3 vacancies remained unfilled for a long time due to non-availability of candidates, as is evident from reply statement of Public Service Commission. But later, one of those three non-availability of candidate vacancies was advised later through NCA Notification. In total, 3 candidates were advised and appointed. One vacancy was reported for By transfer appointment to Public Service Commission and one arose only on 01.05.2024, after the expiry of ranked list. There is nothing on record to show that apart from the 7 vacancies, other vacancies were available for Direct recruitment. The 2 nd respondent has explained the method adopted for filling up the above vacancies, which according to us is strictly in accordance with law. There is nothing on record to show that apart from the 7 vacancies, other vacancies were available for Direct recruitment. The 2 nd respondent has explained the method adopted for filling up the above vacancies, which according to us is strictly in accordance with law. In the absence of any evidence to show that substantive vacancies were available for advice and appointment from Annexure A1 ranked list, the Original Application is dismissed as devoid of merit” 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for KPSC. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2 nd respondent filed the reply statements with contradictions regarding the availability of vacancies in the post of High School Assistant (Social Science)-Tamil Medium. It was without considering these contradictions, the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application. In the statement of facts of the original petition, these contradictory versions regarding the vacancies stated by the 2 nd respondent are given by the petitioner in a chart. 9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC would submit that the petitioner has not specified the Schools wherein the vacancies claimed by the petitioner are in existence, which were not reported to the KPSC. The KPSC has made appointments to the vacancies reported and hence no interference is needed to the impugned order of the Tribunal. The learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Arshitha P. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2022 (2) KHC 299] to support his argument that it is for the candidates to gather the information pertaining to the vacancy positions and provide the same in their pleadings. 10. The learned Senior Government Pleader also supported the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Director of Indian System of Medicine and Another v. Dr.Susmi C.T. and Another [ 2022 (1) KHC 340 ] in support of the contention that as far as the vacancies not reported are concerned, the candidates cannot claim a right of appointment and that the Administrative Tribunal has no role in enquiring into the facts which were not pleaded by the petitioner in the original application. 11. 11. We have carefully perused the pleadings in the original application as well as the reply statements filed by the respondents. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are inconsistencies in the reply statements filed by the 2 nd respondent regarding the vacancy position. A comparison of vacancies stated by the 2 nd respondent in three conflicting reply statements, which were marked as Exts.P3, P3(b) and P3(d) in the original petition, is narrated in the statement of facts of this original petition. For a better understanding of the same, the said table in the statement of facts is extracted hereunder: 1st reply statement dated 03.02.2024 2nd reply statement dated 31.07.2024 3rd reply statement dated 09.10.2024 Admitted only 5 vacancies. Out of which 3 are NAC, one is reported for by transfer appointment, 1 vacancy is set apart for promotion GHS Vattavada PHS Elappara (01.04.2022) GHS Chenduvarai PHS Elappara (05.07.2022) GHS Yellappetty GHS Vagamon (16.18.2022) GHS Vanchivayal GHS Kanjanappara (17.01.2023) GHS Udumbanchola PHS Vandiperiyar (01.04.2023) GVHS Munnar GVHS Munnar (16.01.2024) GHS Marayoor GHS Munnar (01.05.2024 after expiry of ranked list) Note: Admitted availability of 7 vacancies: Out of which 3 are NAC, advice issued in 2, one reported for by transfer appointment, 1 vacancy arose on 01.05.2024 after expiry of ranked list Note: Admitted availability of 7 vacancies: Out of which 2 are NAC, advice issued in 3, one reported for by transfer appointment, 1 vacancy arose on 01.05.2024 after expiry of ranked list 12. By the interim order dated 15.02.2024, the Tribunal had directed the Government Pleader to get instructions with respect to the vacancies pointed out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the rejoinder dated 12.02.2024 filed by the petitioner. Similarly, as per the interim order dated 29.02.2024, the tribunal directed the 2 nd respondent to report 8 vacancies provisionally prior to 5.00 P.M. on 01.03.2024, and accordingly, 8 vacancies were provisionally reported on 01.03.2024. 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the vacancy position is differently stated in the 3 reply statements filed by the 2 nd respondent. According to the petitioner, daily wage employees are engaged at GHS Yellappetty, GHS Vattavada, GHS Kanjanappara, GHS Nedumkandam and GHS Anakkara. GHS Nedumkandam has been omitted in both the reply statements filed by the respondents. According to the petitioner, daily wage employees are engaged at GHS Yellappetty, GHS Vattavada, GHS Kanjanappara, GHS Nedumkandam and GHS Anakkara. GHS Nedumkandam has been omitted in both the reply statements filed by the respondents. It is also pertinent to note from the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cadre strength of High School Assistant (Social Science)-Tamil Medium is 25. 14. On going through the impugned order of the Tribunal, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal failed to note the contradictory stand in the different reply statements filed by the 2 nd respondent. It is true that the candidates, who plead that the vacancies available are not reported have a duty to plead the exact position of vacancies with details of the same in the original application. In the instant case, the petitioner has raised a specific case that there are 8 vacancies available and the Schools are making temporary appointments, not to report those vacancies to the KPSC. As provided in the chart, the stand of the 2 nd respondent is contradictory or conflicting with regard to the vacancies. Therefore, the facts of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr.Susmi C.T. [ 2022 (1) KHC 340 ] and that of this Court in Arshitha P. [ 2022 (2) KHC 299 ] , have no relevance to the instant case. While going through the impugned Order of the Tribunal, keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and materials on record, we are of the opinion that even after directing to provisionally report 8 vacancies, the Tribunal did not consider the contentions of the parties in its proper perspective. 15. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has to be directed to reconsider the original application in view of the pleadings of the parties, especially the contradictory stand taken by the 2 nd respondent in the reply statements, regarding the vacancy position. In the result, this original petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.A.No.2290 of 2023 and the Tribunal is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after taking note of the aforesaid observations made in this judgment, giving opportunity to the parties to put forward their case on merits, as expeditiously as possible.