Kurian Joseph, J.

Reluctance to follow the principle once clearly settled by a Bench decision of this Court gave rise to this Original Petition. The impugned orders are Exts. P2 and P3 relating to the Kerala Government Presses Subordinate Service. Ext. P2 is a letter wherein it is stated that if promotions are effected to Grade-I/Upper Division from different categories, seniority of the promoted personnel should be decided on the basis of date of birth. That is exactly the method condemned by this Court in Ext. P4 judgment wherein it was specifically held, and that too with reference to the very same Department, that "persons from the same cadre when get promotion to the higher posts, must carry along with them their seniority in the lower cadre. This legal position is beyond controversy".

2. That was a case where the Division Bench considered the seniority of a person promoted from Category-IV and another person promoted from Category-VI. There also, the contention was that once promoted from Category-IV and Category-VI, seniority in the promoted Grade-I should be decided on the basis of their respective dates of birth, the older being the senior. Turning down the said contention, this court held that seniority which they maintained in Grade II should be maintained in Grade I also. In spite of such a legal position settled with respect to the very same Department by the judgment dated 14.2.1995, one wonders how the Department can make a somersault and again come up with a letter in the nature of Ext. P2. And that takes us to the facts of the case.

3. The 1st petitioner entered service as Monotype Caster Operator Gr. II on 7.4.1971, the 2nd petitioner as Linotype Operator Grade II on 26.4.1973, the 3rd petitioner in the same category on 26.7.1973, the 3rd respondent as Mono Super Caster Operator Gr. II on 7.9.1973 and the 4th respondent as Foundry Worker Gr. II on 30.8.1974. The case of the 4th petitioner need not be considered in this case since he is admittedly a late entrant in service.

4. Thus, admittedly petitioners 1 to 3 are earlier entrants in Grade II than respondents 3 and 4. All of them were promoted to Grade I on 26.5.1982. It is true that respondents 3 and 4 were placed under Senior Grade earlier than petitioners 1 to 3 since such placement was available to them in their respective category. However, that is immaterial as far as further promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman is concerned, since the feeder category to the said promotion post is only Grade I. Admittedly, all of them come under the feeder category to the post of Assistant Foreman (Machine Composing). But when promotions were effected as per Ext. P3, the 2nd respondent promoted respondents 3 and 4 in preference to the 1st petitioner and petitioners 2 and 3 were left out and that took the petitioners to this Court in the Original Petition.

5. In the counter affidavit Ext. P3 promotion is justified based on Ext. P2 letter issued by the 1st respondent and addressed to the 2nd respondent. It is stated therein that there is no special ratio fixed for the purpose of promotion from different Grade-I/Upper Division posts to the post of Assistant Foreman (Machine Composing) since the Senior Grade is not included in the feeder category. However, in the said letter dated 9.3.1998 it is stated that when promotion is effected to Grade I, seniority among the promotees should be determined on the basis of their date of birth.

6. With reference to the very same Department of Printing, the issue came up for consideration before this Court and the principle has been settled ultimately in Ext. P4 Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No. 1233 of 1994. As already observed, that was a case relating to determination of seniority of two persons promoted from Category-IV and Category VI. There also the contention was that the seniority of personnel when coming to Grade I should be decided on the basis of the date of birth and that their entry to Grade II was irrele