The court emphasized the importance of following the relevant rules and orders in recruitment, seniority, and promotions, and highlighted the requirement of natural justice in granting relaxations or exemptions.

Abdul Gafoor, J.

The appellants in the three writ appeals and the petitioners in O.P.No.5818/02 claimed direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector (District Armed Reserve) pursuant to a notification, Ext.P1 in O.P.No.5818/02. We will refer to the exhibits as marked in that petition, unless otherwise specified. Candidates like them came before this court as the department was not reporting to the Public Service Commission (PSC) the vacancies set apart for direct recruitment for being advised for appointment. They were fortunate enough to get interim orders including that passed on 30.5.1991, to report the available vacancies to the PSC. They were, on reporting the vacancies, advised for appointment on 4.1.1993. Their contention was that the list Ext.P2 prepared by the Public Service Commission based on Ext.P1 notification ought to have been kept alive for three years. It was this contention which was urged in O.P.Nos.4352/91, 9024/91 & 2062/91, which gave rise to the above three writ appeals. It was in the said original petitions the interim direction as mentioned above had been issued. But finally, the said Original Petitions were dismissed following a Division Bench Judgment in O.P.No.5676/1998. In the meantime, they had already obtained advise for appointment and had been really appointed. They apprehend that the dismissal of the Original Petitions might affect their appointment. Faced with that situation the writ appeals have been preferred.

2. In the meanwhile, the department published a provisional seniority list of Sub Inspectors (District Armed Reserve) Ext.P3 in O.P.No.31240/01. This seniority list was finalized as per Ext.P6 in that Original Petition. Therein the writ appellants and the petitioners in O.P.No.5818/02 were ranked above the writ petitioners in O.P.No.31240/01. They could understand that these persons were ranked above them in Ext.P6 final seniority list, because of Ext.P7 order of relaxation passed by Government in favour of the writ appellants and similarly placed persons, exercising the power under rule 39 of the General Rules in KS & SSR, so as to retain them in service in spite of dismissal of the Original Petitions filed by them. It is contended that, when the three original petitions which gave rise to the above three writ appeals have been dismissed, the advice made and appointments effected pursuant to the interim orders issued in the said three original petitions loose efficacy and the incumbents do not get any right for continuance of their appointment effected based on the interim order, which was only subject to the result of those three Original Petitions. Therefore, the writ appellants and the petitioners in O.P.No.5818/02 cannot hold their appointment on regular basis. Their appointments are regularized only based on Ext.P7 relaxation order impugned in O.P.No.31240/01. This order is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the power vested in Government under Rule 39 could have been invoked only to deal with any situation equitably so that any person may not suffer from disabilities. A person who had obtained appointment based on an interim order from this court, cannot claim the post when the Original Petition itself has been dismissed. That will not be a situation to equitably deal with invoking Rule 39. In this regard the decision reported in Renjeev V. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 871 is also relied on. It is further submitted that even it Government wishes to invoke such a power, as it may affect others like them, including in the matter of seniority, they ought to have been heard. There had been no such hearing before Ext.P7 was issued. The decision reported in Varghese v. State of Kerala (1988 (1) 507 is relied on in this respect. Therefore, it is submitted that Ext.P7 does not have any legal efficacy. When Ext.P7 looses its efficacy, the appointees who had been retained as per Ext.P7 can, at the best, in order to avoid any termina