JUDGMENT : MURALEE KRISHNA S., J. 1. This original petition is filed by respondents 46 to 49 in O.A.(EKM)No.758 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (‘Tribunal’ in short), challenging the orders dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.(EKM)No.973 of 2025 and M.A.(EKM)No.1111 of 2025. 2. Going by the averments in the original petition, the petitioners are candidates who are included in the ranked list for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk (Kannada - Malayalam Knowing) in Kasaragod district. 115 vacancies of Lower Division Clerk (Kannada - Malayalam Knowing) in Kasaragod district have been identified and reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ in short), as evident from Annexure A12 status of posts. But, due to various litigations, not even a single candidate has been advised from the ranked list. The candidates who are included in Annexure A2 ranked list dated 01.08.2022 published by the KPSC, for the post of LD Clerks (various departments) in Kasaragod district have filed OA (EKM)No.758 of2025 claiming the vacancies set apart for Lower Division Clerk (Kannada - Malayalam Knowing) in Kasaragod district and the Tribunal as per Exhibit P2 order dated 30.05.2025 stayed the advice by the KPSC against the vacancies reported in Annexure A12 and also ordered not to report any further vacancies of Lower Division Clerk (Kannada - Malayalam knowing) in Kasaragod district. All the vacancies available for LD Clerks (various departments) in Kasaragod district have already been reported and advised from Annexure A2 ranked list. That apart, in the vacancies set apart for Lower Division Clerk (Kannada-Malayalam Knowing) in Kasaragod district, a large number of candidates from the ranked list of LD Clerks (various departments) in Kasaragod district are being posted and are even now occupying illegally. Even though, the petitioners herein had filed Miscellaneous Application for vacating Exhibit P2 interim order, the Tribunal not only declined to fully vacate Exhibit P2 interim order, but further issued another direction to provisionally report 97 vacancies more which have already been regularly reported towards selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk (Kannada - Malayalam Knowing)in Kasaragod district. Exhibits P7 and P8 orders dated 29.07.2025 issued by the Tribunal are patently illegal and are liable to be set aside. Hence, the petitioners filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Exhibits P7 and P8 orders dated 29.07.2025 issued by the Tribunal are patently illegal and are liable to be set aside. Hence, the petitioners filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the party respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that all the vacancies available for L.D. Clerks (various departments) in Kasargode district have already been reported and advised from Annexure A2 ranked list dated 01.08.2022. Even though the petitioners filed a miscellaneous application for vacating Ext.P2 interim order dated 30.05.2025, the Tribunal passed the impugned orders without considering the serious and genuine contentions raised by the petitioners. The impugned interim orders passed by the Tribunal, if permitted to continue, will cause serious prejudice to the petitioners. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC would submit that the majority of the official respondents are not the concerned officers who have to report the district-wise vacancies of LD Clerks and hence it is very difficult to comply the direction of the Tribunal. 6. The original application was filed by Respondents 1 to14 herein, who are included in Annexure A2 ranked list for selection and appointment to the post of L.D. Clerk, including the integrated post of L.D. Clerk/Village Assistant in the Revenue Department of Kasargode district. In the O.A., they challenge, Annexure A7 communication dated 08.04.2025, sent by the District Collector, Kasargode, recommending to retain 53 posts as L.D. Clerk (Kannada and Malayalam knowing). According to respondents 1 to 14, in Annexure A5 Government Order dated 15.01.2025, it was prescribed that the number of L.D. Clerk (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) post required in the district is to be identified by counting the total number of Kannada applications, etc., receiving in each office in the linguistic minority area afresh. It was without conducting the aforesaid exercise, Annexure A7 communication was issued by the District Collector. Hence, according to respondents 1 to 14, retaining 53 posts for accommodating L.D. Clerk (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) is highly disproportionate and illegal. 7. On 30.05.2025, when the original application came up for admission, the tribunal passed the following order: “Admit. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 43. Hence, according to respondents 1 to 14, retaining 53 posts for accommodating L.D. Clerk (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) is highly disproportionate and illegal. 7. On 30.05.2025, when the original application came up for admission, the tribunal passed the following order: “Admit. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 43. Learned Standing Counsel for PSC takes notice for respondents 44 and 45. In view of Annexure A5 and as the identification of the post of LDC (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) is not yet over, there shall be a stay of advice by the PSC against the vacancies reported in Annexure A12. There shall also be a further direction to respondents 5 to 43 not to report any more vacancies of LDC (Kannada and Malayalam knowing) to the PSC pending finalization of identification for a period of one month.Hand over.” 8. Subsequently, the petitioners got themselves impleaded in the original application by filing MA(EKM) No.910 of 2025. They have filed a reply statement dated 02.07.2025, producing therewith Annexures R46(a) and R46(b) documents and also filed MA(EKM)No.973 of 2025 to vacate the interim order dated 30.05.2025. In that M.A, the Tribunal passed the following order on 29.07.2025: “The stay of advice by the Public service Commission against the vacancies reported in Annexure A12 as ordered on 30.05.2025 shall stand modified and stay of advice shall be limited against the vacancies reported after 01.08.2022. The interim order dated 30.05.2025, as modified above, would stand extended by one month”. 9. Meanwhile, respondents 1 to 14 filed MA(EKM)No.1111 of2025 seeking a direction from the Tribunal to report the vacancies of LD Clerks in various departments, wherein the Tribunal passed the impugned interim order on 29.07.2025 itself, which reads thus: “Heard the counsel for the applicants as well as the learned counsel for respondents 46 to 49. 2. 9. Meanwhile, respondents 1 to 14 filed MA(EKM)No.1111 of2025 seeking a direction from the Tribunal to report the vacancies of LD Clerks in various departments, wherein the Tribunal passed the impugned interim order on 29.07.2025 itself, which reads thus: “Heard the counsel for the applicants as well as the learned counsel for respondents 46 to 49. 2. Though the learned counsel for the party respondents vehemently opposed the relief sought for in this Miscellaneous Application, in order to see that nobody is put to prejudice the following interim order is passed: (i) There shall be a direction to respondent No.5 and 8 to report 49 vacancies in the Department of Land Revenue, respondents 16 and 17 to report 2 vacancies in the Education Department, respondent No. 13 to report 1 vacancy in the SC Department, respondents 18 and 19 to report 16 vacancies in the Local Self Government Department, respondent No.14 to report 2 vacancies in the Co-operation Department, respondent No.20 to report 1 vacancy in the Industries and Commerce Department, respondents 21 and 22 to report 1 vacancy in the Animal Husbandry Department, respondents 23 and 24 to report 3 vacancies in the Agriculture Department, respondent No.25 to report 1 vacancy in the Woman & Child Development Department, respondent No.26 to report 1 vacancy in the Medical Education Department , respondent No. 15 to report 2 vacancies in the Food and Civil Supplies Department, respondent No.28 to report 1 vacancy in the Harbour Department, respondent No.29 to report 1 vacancy in the Soil Survey Department, respondent No. 30 to report 3 vacancies in the GST Department, respondents 32 and 33 to report 1 vacancy in the Fire and Rescue Department, respondents 34 and 35 to report 4 vacancies in the Registration Department, respondents 36 and 37 to report 1 vacancy in the Motor Vehicles Department, respondents 38 and 39 to report 1 vacancy in the Treasury Department, respondent No.9 to report 1 vacancy in the Electrical Inspectorate, respondent No.40 to report 1 vacancy in the ST Development Department, respondents 11 and 12 to report 1 vacancy in the Health Services Department, respondent No.10 to report 1 vacancy in the Labour Department, respondent No.41 to report 1 vacancy in the National Employment Scheme and respondent No.42 to report 2 vacancies in the College Education Department to respondents 44 and 45 on or before 31.07.2025, provisionally and subject to further orders. (ii) There shall be a further direction to the Public Service Commission not to advise any candidates against the provisionally reported vacancies without taking orders from this Tribunal”. 10. While going through the contentions raised by the petitioners/respondents 46 to 49 in their reply statement, we notice that several arguable contentions are raised by respondents 46 to 49 against the reporting of vacancies of LD Clerks from various departments of Kasaragod district, overlooking Annexure A7 report of the District Collector. The impugned orders would show that the Tribunal passed the same without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners herein, stating the reason that nobody is put to prejudiced by the said orders. According to the KPSC, majority of the official respondents who were directed to report the vacancies are not the proper parties also. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside. In the result, this original petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in MA (EKM)No.973 of 2025 and MA (EKM)No.1111 of 2025 in OA(EKM)No.758 of 2025 and the Tribunal is directed to reconsider the said interlocutory applications and pass a considered orders, if found necessary before the final disposal of the original application itself, in accordance with law after taking into consideration of the pleadings in the reply statement filed by the petitioners/respondents 46 to 49.