V.K. Bali, C.J.

Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as "KS & SSR", dealing with seniority reads as follows:-

"(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class, category or grade and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are arranged in the advice list."

2. The appellants, who were respondents in the original lis, would endeavour to give literal meaning to the statute and in as much as the date of first effective advice in the matter of their appointment was prior in point of time from the petitioners in the original lis, now arrayed as respondents in this Writ Appeal, they would want us to declare them seniors. The petitioners, who succeeded in the matter of inter se seniority between them and the appellants in tune with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge would want us to determine seniority by striking the balance to give effect to the general purpose of legislature not within the literal meaning of the statute. The learned Division Bench while hearing the appeal arising from the judgment recorded by the learned Single Judge determining seniority in consonance with equity, justice and good conscience doubted the correctness of the same and also the correctness of a Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.156 of 2002 (A) in the matter of M. Seethi, Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and another v. Maya Mukundan, Assistant Engineer and others, decided on 27th May, 2002. It is for that precise reason that even though the matter was covered on all fours by a decision of the Division Bench in M. Seethi's case (supra) the matter has been referred for decision by a Full Bench.

3. Brief facts culminating into the reference made by the Division Bench dated 26th July, 2005 while doubting the decision of a co-ordinate Bench in M. Seethi's case (supra) need a necessary mention. The petitioners who filed the Original Petition were holding the post of Block Development Officers, hereinafter referred to as "BDO". They came to be appointed by way of direct recruitment. They were advised by the Public Service Commission from the rank list of BDOs which came into force with effect from 25.11.1997. The said rank list was prepared pursuant to the notification published in the Kerala Gazette dated 8.11.1983 inviting applications for appointment to the post of BDO. Even though their names came to be included in the rank list of 1987, they came to be appointed only in 1993, The reason for their appointment at such a belated stage was the letter issued by the Chief Secretary dated 30.11.1998 addressed to the Commissioner of Rural Developments, Thiruvananthapuram.

The Chief Secretary, by the letter aforesaid, directed the Commissioner of Rural Developments to start applying the ratio in respect of cadre strength instead of the practice being followed. The Special Rules, namely, the Kerala General Service (posts in the Development Department) Rules, governing the appointments, provided that appointment to the cadre was to be made from three sources, namely, (i) by appointment by transfer from among Junior Lecturers in the Extension Training Centre, etc., (ii) by recruitment by transfer from among Senior Grade and Grade I Assistants in the Government Secretariat; and (iii) by direct recruitment. This was to be in the ratio of 1:1:1. This ratio was being applied with reference to the existing vacancies, but as mentioned above, the Chief Secretary directed that the ratio should apply as per cadre strength. Naturally, this direction resulted in upsetting the chances of direct recruit