Radhakrishnan, J.

We are in this case concerned with the interpretation of Rule 10 read with Rule 17(d) of the Kerala Last Grade Service which deals with transfer on request from one department to another department of the State.

2. Petitioner commenced service as a Peon in the General Education Department on 19-11-1999. While he was an approved probationer in the General Education Department he has sought for a transfer to the Technical Education Department vide Ext.P-1 order dated 14-3-2005. Petitioner was accordingly transferred as Peon to the Technical Education Department and he joined the Technical Education Department as Peon on 23-3-2005. In the order granting transfer it was stated that petitioner had to complete probation for a period of one year from the date of joining duty. But he had already completed his probation in the category of Peon in the General Education Department. Petitioner then approached the second respondent against condition imposed in Ext.P-1. His request was turned down vide Ext.P-6 order dated 31-3-2006. Petitioner then took up the matter with the Government. Government vide Ext.P-7 order partly accepted the petitioners request and ordered that petitioner need not undergo probation again since he had already completed probation in the category of Peon in the General Education Department. However, it was ordered that petitioner would have to be ranked below probationers, approved probationers and full members in the Technical Education Department. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned Single Judge interpreting Rule 17(d) took the view that petitioner has to forego the right to seniority based on Rule 14 and that he would have to take his rank as last in the list of probationers, even though he had completed his probation in the category of Peon in Education Department. Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that it would be inconsistent with the purport of Rule 17(d) to allow a person who seeks a request for transfer to lay a claim for seniority over a probationer in the new Department, who in fact would be entitled to lay claim to seniority in terms of Rule 14 on the basis of his first appointment.

4. Smt. P.V. Asha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in interpreting Rule 10 and Rule 17(d) and came to a wrong conclusion that the petitioner has to take his rank as last in the list of probationers, approved probationers or full members in the Technical Education Department. Counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment as Tradesman against any vacancy which arose after his joining the department. Counsel also submitted that petitioner has no complaint against those who were already promoted, but entitled to get appointment by transfer along with approved probationers and not as last among probationers.

5. Sri K. Sandesh Raj, learned Government Pleader contended that there is no illegality in Ext.P-7 order passed by the Government. Learned Government Pleader submitted that petitioner has to remain last in the seniority since he came to the Technical Department on his own request and that he will be treated as last in the Department among probationers. Under such circumstance petitioner's claim was not considered for appointment by transfer to the post of Tradesman along with approved probationers.

6. Rule 3 of the Last Grade Service deals with applicability of General Rules which says that Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules other than Rules, 3, 4, 5(9), 6 (10 c), 14, 15, 16 and 17 shall not apply to the service. Rule 10 deals with service in a category in different departments or offices which is extracted below for easy reference:

"Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (d) of Rule 17 service rendered in a post included in any one of the categories in a department or office shall count for probation and seniority in regard to an