ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
The petitioners were the applicants in O.A.No.2255 of 2012, T.A.No.3492 of 2012 and T.A.No.3666 of 2012 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. and both the T.As. by a common order dated 15th January, 2014. It is aggrieved by this order this Original Petition is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The Public Service Commission issued notification inviting applications for the post of HSST (Maths). The notification was issued on 14/11/2005 and on conclusion of the recruitment process, ranked list was published on 20/5/2008 and the list expired on 19/11/2012. The petitioners were included in the ranked list.
4. The grievances highlighted before the Tribunal were mainly that the existing vacancies were not reported to the Public Service Commission and that, therefore, necessary directions should be issued compelling the appointing authority to report the vacancies. During the pendancy of the applications before the Tribunal, interim orders were passed and as a result 117 vacancies were provisionally reported, with a further direction that candidates need not be advised against the vacancies reported unless otherwise ordered.
5. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal shows that, after referring to the contentions raised, Tribunal has ordered that the Government will ascertain the vacancies, which are available for filling up upto 19/11/2012 and that candidates will be advised against those vacancies, subject to a maximum of 117, the number of vacancies already reported. It is this order which is challenged before us.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to G.O.(MS)No.160/08/G.Edn. dated 15/09/2008 (Ext.P5) in O.P. (KAT)No.340 of 2014 and contended that, by this order 74 posts were created by the Government. According to him, candidates are to be advised against those posts. First of all, the order does not explicitly show that, any posts were created as contended by the learned counsel. Be that as it may the Tribunal has ordered that the vacancies upto 19/11/2012, when the rank list expired, shall be assessed and that candidates shall be advised subject to a maximum of 117, the number of the vacancies already reported. Therefore, even if any posts were created, that is also taken care by this direction issued by the Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel then contended that in T.A.No.3666 of 2012 the applicants have challenged Ext.P14 therein, G.O.(Rt).No.1011/09/Gl.Edn. dated 7/03/2009. Referring to paragraph 4 of O.A.(KAT)No.340 of 2014 counsel further contended that their contention that excess appointments have been made in the bytransfer category and that those posts occupied by the HSAs should also be diverted to direct recruitment quota. Insofar as these contentions are concerned, reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that such contentions were not urged before the Tribunal. In the pleadings in O.P.(KAT)No.340 of 2014 also there is no specific plea that these contentions were raised and were not considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are unable to entertain these contentions raised before us. On the other hand, if these arguments were urged and were not considered by the Tribunal it is upto the applicants concerned to seek review of the order by making appropriate applications before the Tribunal itself.
We do not find any reason to entertain these O.Ps.(KAT).
Hence these O.Ps.(KAT) are dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj