JUDGMENT : MURALEE KRISHNA S., J. 1. This original petition is filed by the 5 th respondent in O.A.No.130 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (for short the ’Tribunal’), challenging Exts.P7 and P8 interim orders dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.Nos.1249 of 2025 and 1269 of 2025 respectively, in that Original Application. 2. As per the pleadings in the Original Petition, the petitioner is presently working as Deputy Superintendent at Central Prison, Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram. His name has been included in the select list dated 04.06.2025 for promotion to the post of Joint Superintendent for the year 2025. The 1 st respondent is the senior-most Deputy Superintendent, who has been superseded from being included in that select list due to the pendency of a criminal case and disciplinary proceedings against him. Being aggrieved, the 1 st respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.130 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking a declaration that he is eligible and entitled to be promoted as Joint Superintendent with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior in Annexure A1 seniority list dated 27.04.2019. In the Original Application, the 1 st respondent has also sought for a direction against respondents 2 to 5 herein to grant retrospective promotion to him as Joint Superintendent with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all service and monetary benefits. The 1 st respondent sought an interim order to provisionally promote him to the said post during the pendency of the original application. The Tribunal adjourned the matter to get instructions as to the status of the disciplinary proceedings against the 1 st respondent. Then the 1 st respondent approached this Court by filing OP(KAT)No.257 of 2025. By Annexure R5(d) judgment dated 17.06.2025, this Court disposed of that original petition by granting an interim order for a period of six weeks. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that judgment read thus; "2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that a select list to the post of Joint Superintendent has been prepared by the DPC, and the following persons have been considered for the promotion. S. No. Name of Officer 1 Sri. Jijesh E.V. 2 Sri. Aneesh C.S. 3 Sri. Vishnu S. 3. Considering the above, we passed the following order on 12.06.2025. S. No. Name of Officer 1 Sri. Jijesh E.V. 2 Sri. Aneesh C.S. 3 Sri. Vishnu S. 3. Considering the above, we passed the following order on 12.06.2025. "We direct that one post of Joint Superintendent in Prisons & Correctional Services Department shall be kept vacant and shall not be filled up based on G.O. (P) no.73/2025/HOME Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 04-06-2025 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home & Vigilance Department) without further orders from this Court." 4. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the above interim order can be retained for a period of six weeks, The petitioner, in the meanwhile, shall implead the aforesaid persons before the Tribunal. The petitioner is free to seek extension of above interim order before the Tribunal. This original petition is disposed of as above." 3. In pursuance to Annexure R5(d) judgment, by Ext.P7 interim order dated 23.07.2025 in M.A.No.1249 of 2025, which is an application filed by the petitioner herein seeking an order to vacate the interim order dated 12.06.2025 passed by this Court, it was held by the Tribunal that evidently since the order dated 12.06.2025 was passed by this Court, the Tribunal cannot modify the said order. Therefore, that interlocutory application was dismissed by the Tribunal. 4. The 1 st respondent filed M.A.No.1269 of 2025 before the Tribunal seeking extension of the interim arrangement made by this Court in Annexure R5(d) judgment. By Ext.P8 order dated 23.07.2025, the Tribunal disposed of that interlocutory application. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that order read thus: "2. The Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to keep one post vacant and not be filled up, through an interim order passed on 12.06.2025. In the judgment disposing the Original Application it is ordered that, the said interm order can be retained for a period of six weeks. Liberty was granted to the applicant to implead necessary parties. It is further made clear that, the applicant will be free to seek extension of the above interim order before this Tribunal. 3. In view of the fact that the Hon’ble High Court had granted interim relief in the matter, we are inclined to extend the same until disposal of the Original Application." Being aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8 orders, the petitioner is now before this Court, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the fact that the Hon’ble High Court had granted interim relief in the matter, we are inclined to extend the same until disposal of the Original Application." Being aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8 orders, the petitioner is now before this Court, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by Annexure R5(d) judgment, this Court directed to keep one post of Joint Superintendent in Prisons & Correctional Services Department vacant for a period of six weeks from 17.06.2025. By Ext.P8 order, the Tribunal extended that interim order until the disposal of the original application. Against the 1 st respondent, disciplinary proceedings are pending. Hence, he is not included in the select list, in view of Note (i) to Rule 28 (b) (i) (7) of Part II KS & SSR. As per Note (ii) to the said Rule, when departmental proceedings for imposition of a major penalty are pending against the senior-most person, the post can be temporarily filled by the next person in the seniority, in the approved list. Therefore, there is no meaning in keeping one post of Joint Superintendent vacant indefinitely. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent would submit that the criminal case against the 1 st respondent was already closed in view of the refer report filed by the Investigating Officer. In Annexure A5 order dated 03.03.2023 in O.A (EKM)No.1566 of 2019, the Tribunal held the disciplinary proceedings against the 1 st respondent as unwarranted. In that circumstance, the 1 st respondent is entitled to promotion and therefore there is no illegality in Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the Tribunal. 8. Note (i) and (ii) of Rule 28 (b) (i) (7) of Part II KS & SSR read thus: "Note: (i) Officers under suspension and officers against whom criminal proceedings are pending in a Sessions Court or in any other higher Court for grave offences like murder, dacoity, etc; and Officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a major penalty under the disciplinary rules applicable to them should not be included in the select list. But the suitability of such an Officer for promotion should be assessed at the relevant time by the Departmental Promotion Committee and a finding reached whether, if the Officer had not been suspended or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings had not been pending against him, he would have been recommended/selected for promotion. Where a select list is prepared the Departmental Promotion Committee shall also make a finding as to what the position of the Officer in that list would have been but for the suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him. "The findings as to the suitability and the place in the select list of the Officer should be recorded separately and attached to the proceedings. The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee need only contain a note. “The findings are recorded in the attached sheet of paper". The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy only on a temporary basis. Officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken after the charges have prima facie been established in a preliminary enquiry should not be included in the select list. But, the cases of such Officers should also be assessed. The question of including them in the select list shall be considered when the result of the enquiry is known. However Officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a minor penalty may be included in the select list provisionally if they are found suitable but for the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. (ii) The vacancy that would have gone to the Officer but for his suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him for the imposition of a major penalty should be filled only on a temporary basis by the next person in the approved list. If the Officer concerned is completely exonerated, he will be promoted thereafter to the post filled on a temporary basis, the arrangements made previously being reversed. If the exoneration is not complete, the Departmental Promotion Committee may decide each case on its merits. Where, however, the post which would have gone to the Officer but for his suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him, ceases to exist before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, he will be promoted to the first vacancy that may be available in future if he is found fit for promotion at that time. Where, however, the post which would have gone to the Officer but for his suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him, ceases to exist before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, he will be promoted to the first vacancy that may be available in future if he is found fit for promotion at that time. If the officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for imposition of a minor penalty and who have been provisionally included in the select list are fully exonerated of the charges, their cases for promotion on the basis of such inclusion in the select list shall be considered. If the Officers are not fully exonerated of the charges, the Departmental Promotion Committee may decide each case on its own merit."[Underline supplied] 9. Admittedly, disciplinary proceedings are pending against the 1 st respondent. It is true that from Annexure A9 proceedings of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, it can be gathered that the criminal case against the 1 st respondent was closed in view of the filing of a refer report by the Investigating Officer. However, the disciplinary proceedings against the 1 st respondent are still not concluded. Even if any observation is made in Annexure A5 order of the Tribunal regarding the merits of that disciplinary proceedings, the same is a matter to be considered in the disciplinary proceedings. A reading of Notes (i) and (ii) of Rule 28 (b) (i) (7) of Part II KS & SSR would show that a person against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending, for imposition of a major penalty, should not be included in the select list for promotion. Similarly, if such a proceeding is pending against the person to be promoted, the next senior person in the list shall be temporarily promoted. If the departmental proceedings conclude in his favour, then he will be promoted to the first vacancy that may be available in future if he is found fit for promotion at that time. Hence, keeping one post vacant without selecting anyone from the select list to the post of Joint Superintendent is detrimental or adverse to the interest of the person next in rank in the select list. It is true that while passing Ext.P7 order dated 23.07.2025, the period of the interim relief granted for six weeks by this Court in Annexure R5(d) judgment was not over. It is true that while passing Ext.P7 order dated 23.07.2025, the period of the interim relief granted for six weeks by this Court in Annexure R5(d) judgment was not over. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in dismissing M.A.No.1249 of 2025 by Ext.P7 order. At the same time, the Tribunal ought not have passed a blanket order like Ext.P8, directing to keep one post of Joint Superintendent vacant till the disposal of the original application, merely by saying that this Court granted interim relief in Annexure R5(d) judgment.Therefore Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, this original petition is allowed in part by setting aside Ext.P8 order dated 23.07.2025, passed by the Tribunal in M.A.No.1269 of 2025 in O.A.No.130 of 2025. The Tribunal shall consider the said interlocutory application afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after considering the rival contentions of the parties on merits, if the same is required prior to the passing of the final order in the original application.