K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioners are Armed Police Inspectors of Kerala Armed Police 1st Battalion, Thrissur. They have approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order of the Government where under their claim for retrospective promotion to the post of Havildar has been rejected. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following:

2. Kerala Armed Police Battalion I (KAP I) and Kerala Armed Police Battalion (KAPII) were formed as per the Government Orders dated 17.11.1972 and 6.10.1976. Prior to 17.11.1972, there were two Armed Police Battalions, namely MSP and SAP. The non-gazetted posts in the MSP were governed by the Special Rules for MSP Subordinate Service and those in the SAP were governed by various executive orders. KAP I and II Battalions were separate units for the purpose of seniority and promotion. MSP and SAP were also separate units for the above said purpose. While so, the Government issued Special Rules on 18.1.1984 treating all the Police Battalions as a common unit for the purpose of seniority, transfer and promotion. As per R.6(a) of the Special Rules, the Constables recruited to KAP I and II on merger with the common unit were entitled to count their seniority with effect from the date of appointment as Police Constable. Similarly, Constables promoted as Havildars were also entitled to reckon their seniority from the date of promotion as Havildar. Since the Rules were given only prospective operation from 18.1.1984, the persons like the petitioners who were in the KAP I could claim promotion only in those vacancies that arose after 18.1.1984 in other consistent units.

3. The petitioners joined KAP Battalion I on 28.3.1973 as Police Constables and they completed their probation on 17.11.1975. They were promoted as Naiks on 20.8.1977 and thereafter they were promoted as Havildars on 30.8.1978.

4. The persons appointed in MSP and SAP and who got promotion as Havildars in 1979 were considered by the Departmental Promotion Board held in 1982 for promotion to the post of APASI (Armed Police Assistant Sub Inspector). Though the petitioners have longer service, they were considered by the Departmental Promotion Board for promotion as APASI only in 1985. This is the grievance highlighted by the petitioners in the Original Petition. Till the issuance of the Special Rules on 18.1.1984, there were no Rules or Orders in KAP I which is a separate unit providing for appointment to the post of APASI. Therefore, they were not considered for promotion. On the contrary, in MSP and SAP there were Rules or Orders prescribing the qualification and method of appointment to the post of APASI and therefore they were promoted to those posts in 1982.

5. The petitioners' claim that their juniors were promoted in 1982 and though they were seniors, they were not considered, is plainly untenable. In 1982, MSP and SAP were separate units and therefore there is no question of any interse seniority between the petitioners and those in MSP or SAP. They joined the common pool only on 18.1.1984 and they do not have a case that in any vacancy that arose after the said date they were not considered for the promotion as APASI or were superseded by juniors. Since the petitioners belong to a different unit, they could not be considered for promotion to the vacancies of ASI that arose in MSP or SAP in 1982.

6. The petitioners had approached this Court earlier and this Court in Ext. P3 judgment had held as follows:

"It would appear that the anomaly has happened for the reason that though the Special Rules made in 1984 (Ext.P4) gives retrospective operation in respect of the categories 1, lA and 2, the same retrospective effect has not been given to the lower posts. So far as the anomaly continues in the Rules, the 2nd or 3rd respondent cannot make any promotion on the basis of the services prior to the making of the rules. As the matter now stands, the petitioners cannot get any relief."

7. I am in respectful agreement