S. Siri Jagan, J.

When these Writ Appeals came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench perceived a conflict between two earlier Division Bench decisions, one in W.A. No.1563/2001 and connected cases and the other in W.A. No.424/2000, on the same issue, which is under consideration in these Writ Appeals. The Division Bench, therefore chose to refer the matter for decision by a Full Bench. It is under the above circumstances that these Writ Appeals have come up for hearing before us.

2. The common issue involved in these cases is as to whether the Government Order, issued in G.O(Ms) No. 39/2001/TD dated 30-3-2001 ordering that, while applying the 1:1 ratio, now existing in the Kerala Excise and Subordinate Service Rules, for promotion to the category of Excise Preventive Officer from among Excise Guards possessing, the minimum qualification of SSLC and those who do not possess SSLC qualification, a senior Excise Guard, who possesses the minimum educational qualification of pass in SSLC or its equivalent, shall not be superseded by a junior Excise Guard who does not possess the qualification of pass in SSLC examination or its equivalent has the effect of amending the Special Rules themselves and therefore unsustainable.

3. In these cases, W.A. No.2302/2005 is filed by that category of Excise Guards who do not possess the qualification of SSLC. W.A. No.1886/2005 is filed by those Excise Guards who do possess SSLC or equivalent qualification and W.A.1665/2005 is filed by the State supporting the above said Government Order. The bare facts necessary for disposal of these Writ Appeals are as follows.

4. Under the Kerala Excise and Subordinate Service Rules, there are five categories of posts of which two are Excise Preventive Officer and Excise Guard. The method of recruitment to the post of Excise Preventive Officer is by direct recruitment or by promotion from Excise Guard. It is provided in the rules that every 4th substantive vacancy shall be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment. The remaining vacancies are to be filled up by promotion from among Excise Guards possessing the minimum qualification of SSLC standard and those who do not possess this qualification in the ratio of 1:1. This ratio was subject matter of a long drawn out litigation, which ultimately ended in the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandran v. Board of Revenue, reported in 1995 (1) KLT 12, in which the Supreme Court upheld the ratio. In spite of the Supreme Court decision, in the Excise Department there continued to be a tendency to favour the SSLC group apparently overlooking the ratio. As a result, further litigation arose, which led to the decision of this. Court in Gibson v. State of Kerala, reported in 1997 (1) KLT 314, in which it was held that when a ratio is prescribed between two groups, both groups must be considered to be qualified and hence the ratio has to be followed subject to the other conditions prescribed under the rules regarding experience. This rule regarding experience, as it, originally stood, was that for promotion to the post of Excise Guards. SSLC holders should have 5 years' experience whereas those who do not possess SSLC qualification should have 15 years experience. Subsequently, this prescription was reduced to 3 and 7 year's respectively which is the present prescription. The Single Bench decision in Gibson case (supra) was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.315/1997. It is understood that S.L.P filed against W.A.No. 315/1997 was also dismissed. Despite these decisions, there were still attempts at certain levels for giving preference to the group having SSLC or equivalent qualification, which resulted in O.P. No.20075/1999 in which, following Gibson’s case (supra), a learned Single Judge directed review of all promotions made without following the principles laid down in Gibson case. The Division Bench dismissed W.A.No.424/2000 filed against the said decision fo