Can a seniority list of Government servants be prepared only on the basis of the age of the personnel? Can any principle of reservation be applied in public employment, without any enabling provision? These are the issues arising for decision in these cases.

2. Petitioners and the private respondents are Police Constables (Telecommunication) governed by the Special Rules issued by the Government of Kerala as per S.R.O.No.848/83. With the passage of time, they have been promoted to various posts. The issue is as to whether the publication of seniority list of Police Constables (Telecommunication) is sustainable under the law and the Constitution.

3. The allegation of the petitioners is that the impugned seniority list has been prepared solely on the criteria of age of the incumbents and by applying a rule of reservation and communal rotation, which is just not available in the Special Rules. It is also the specific and uncontroverted contention of the petitioners that the Government have not issued any notification in terms of the second limb of Rule 14 of part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, hereinafter, the 'General Rules', for short.

4. Dealing first with the plea relating to the application of principles of reservation, it can be noticed that there is no provision in the Special Rules, by which, any principle of reservation of appointments is laid down to apply to the service class or category to be regulated by those Special Rules. Therefore, the opening limb of Rule 14 of the General Rules does not apply. As already noticed, it is not in dispute that the Government have not made and issued any notification in the gazette, declaring that the principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to such services. Bereft of any of these

two, the applicability of the rules of reservation contained in the General Rules is excluded. Reservation in public appointments is not a constitutional mandate, it is a matter of constitutional permittance. It is that permissiveness that becomes the foundation for making a rule of reservation within the permissible limits. But, in cases where reservation is not made, it cannot be enforced because any enforcement of a principle, which is not made applicable, would immediately infract Article 14 and would, in public service, impinge on Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned seniority list, in so far as it applies a rule of reservation and communal rotation, is contrary to law and the Constitution, and is, therefore, void and inoperative.

5. In so far as the preparation of the impugned seniority list solely on the basis of the age of the incumbents is concerned, the laws do not authorise it. That is not a yardstick found in the General Rules. Such a yardstick is irrational. It is arbitrary. Hence, unconstitutional.

6. It is the admitted fact that the Police Department does not have the files relating to the Police Constables (Telecommunication), at least for the relevant period. In the absence of availability of relevant records, the next rational course that ought to be reasonably adopted is to reconstruct the files to the extent it is possible and permissible. Reconstruction of documents has to be done on the basis of whatever relevant documents that may be available, including those which the concerned personnel may provide, the reliability of which would be decided by the superiors in the department, guided by justice, equity and conscience, resulting in a rational and reasonable conclusion on the acceptability of such documents. Thereupon, preparation of the file by reconstruction on the basis of such reliable materials would follow. Such a course of action in relation to the file in question and the consequent preparation of seniority list cannot be substituted by preparing a seniority list by following the age of the government servants. Along with the reply affidavit in O.P.No.12906/01, materials are placed by the writ petitioners, to