Petitioners challenge Ext.P1(a) and P1(b). They also challenge Ext. P7 seniority list. Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Grade II on 4.3.1999. Period of probation is prescribed as one year of duty within a continuous period of two years from the date on which they join duty. In order to being qualified as Assistant Grade I, the employee should pass Account Test Lower. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that for declaration of probation pass in MOP is essential. Petitioners came to be promoted along with others vide Ext.P5 dated 2.9.2000. It is seen that petitioners are promoted with effect from 21.7.2000. Complaint of the petitioners would appear to be that the regular vacancies occurred from 29.10.1999 to 6.7.2000. Going by the rule prescribing period of probation, it is two years. Therefore it is contended that they have time till 2001 with reference to proviso to Rule 28(a) of the K.S. & S.S.R. It is their case that party respondents excluding respondents 15 to 17 are juniors to the petitioners in the feeder category. Consequently when the vacancies occurred between October, 1999 and July 2000 it is the petitioners who ought to have been promoted. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on two decisions of this court, one reported in Devadasan v. K.S.E.B. (2001 (1) K.L.T. 278) and the unreported judgment in W.A. 880 of 1998. In Devadasan’s case this court held as follows:

“The period specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation is admittedly a continuous period of two years. In the case of petitioner it is from 8.3.94, when he was so promoted. The period expired on 8.3.96. If a promotion chance occurred only within that period, then alone the petitioner can aspire for application of the proviso to seek promotion notwithstanding non-completion of the period of probation. Petitioner should have completed the probation within a continuous period of two years from 8.3.1994. If any of his juniors had completed it earlier than him, and if that junior was being promoted, necessarily, the petitioner would have preference for promotion to him, notwithstanding his non-completion of probation in terms of the said proviso. Here, admittedly, the vacancies in the higher category of Assistant Executive Engineer to which his juniors had been promoted had arisen after 29.2.2000, i.e., beyond the period specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation. So far as the petitioner is concerned, that period ended on 8.3.96, as he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 8.3.94. But he could not complete his probation within that period. He cannot blame others for it. Those are not the vacancies occurred, as provided for in the said proviso, “within the period specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation”. To get the benefit, the vacancy ought to have occurred within the period of probation provided for in the Special Rules, and not within the period actually taken by one to complete the probation”.

In W.A. 880 of 1998 the court held as follows:

“The purpose of insertion/amendment has been detailed in the Explanatory Note, which is not part of the Notification but is intended to indicate its general purport and reads as follows:

“There is at present no provision in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 to protect seniors against being superseded by juniors who completed probation earlier, when, owing to reasons beyond their control such as illness, delay in transit or delay to get relief from any service, the seniors are able to join duty later than the juniors. It is now proposed to incorporate suitable provisions in the Rules with a view to affording protection to such seniors. This Notification is intended to achieve the above object”.

When the object for which the proviso was inserted is taken into consideration, the inevitable conclusion was that the period prescribed for completion of probation has to be reckoned to be three continuous years as provided in Ru