G. SIVARAJAN, J.

The question arising for consideration in these two appeals relates to the scope of Rule 9(a)(iii) of part II or the Kerala State & subordinate Services Rules, 1958(hereinafter referred to as the rules)

2. A Division Bench consisting of Justice Cyriac Joseph and Justice K. Thankappan, while considering W.A. No. 211 of 2002, found that conflicting view have been takes by two Division Benches one consisting of Justice K.G. Balakrishnan (as His Lordship then was) and Justice B.N. Patnaik by judgment dated 3.11.1997 in O.P. No. 12496 of 1997 and the other consisting of Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice G.Sasidharan in Nandagoplan v. District Collector. Idukki(2001(2) KLT 832) and took the view that in view of the apparent conflict of views in regard to the scope of rule 9(a)(iii) of the Rules in the said two judgments it is necessary that the appeal is considered by a Full Bench. Hence the two appeals are placed before the Full Bench.

Rule 9(a)(iii) of part II of the Rules reads thus:-

(iii) A person appointed under clause(i) shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or an approved candidate qualified to hold the part under the sa