KURIAN,J. - (1.) It is seen that respondent No.1-incumbent has retired from service as early as in 1996.
(2.) In that view of the matter, we do not find this a fit case for interference. Hence, in the peculiar facts of this case, we dismiss these appeals, leaving the question of law open.
(3.) Needless to say that this judgment will not be treated as a precedent.;