C.S. Rajan, J.

The petitioners were appointed as Sub Inspectors of Police on the advice of the Public Service Commission dated 9.2.1971. They were promoted as Circle Inspectors of Police on 26.9.1979, 9.6.1980, 11.10.1980, 14.10.1980 etc. They were further promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on various dates in 1990. Petitioners 1 to 4 were further promoted as Superintendents of Police. The posts of Circle Inspectors, Deputy Superintendents of Police and Superintendents of Police are selection posts. The promotions of the petitioners to these posts were on the basis of selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

2. The 6th respondent was also recruited as Sub Inspector of Police along with the petitioners. But this rank in the advice list was lower than that of the petitioners. According to the 6th respondent he was entitled to get the appointment on the basis of communal rotation because he belongs to Hindu Ezhava community. It seems that in his SSLC book his community was not mentioned. The 6th respondent also did not produce any community certificate along with the application or even at the time of the interview. The representation of the 6th respondent claiming a higher rank in the advice list was successively rejected by the PSC. Finally the PSC by letter dated 7.5.1987 informed the Government that the Commission had reconsidered their earlier decisions and decided to allow the request of the 6th respondent. Accordingly the 6th respondent got rank over the petitioners in the advice list of Sub Inspectors of Police.

3. As a consequence of this decision of the PSC, the Government issued notice to the petitioners to refix the seniority in the cadre of Sub Inspectors. Exts. P1 to P3 are the objections filed by some of the petitioners. Overruling the above objections, the 5th respondent refixed the seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis the 6th respondent as per Ext. P4 order, Ext. P4 order was challenged by the petitioners before this Court in O.P.No. 1874/89. This Court by Ext. P5 judgment rejected the objections of the petitioners against the refixation of the seniority in the cadre of Sub Inspectors of Police. This Court also made it clear that since no challenge had been made with regard to the seniority in the cadre of Circle Inspectors of Police, the correctness of the inter se seniority in the seniority list of Circle Inspectors of Police was left open.

4. Thereafter by Ext. P9 and P10 the representation of the 6th respondent for inclusion of his name in the 1978 select list of Sub Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Circle Inspectors of Police was considered by the ad hoc Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental Promotion Committee decided to include the 6th respondent in the 1978 select list of Sub Inspectors of Police above his immediate junior Sri. P.M. Janardhanan. The further request of the 6th respondent to include him in 1989 select list of Circle Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, based on the re-assignment of his ranking in the select list of Sub Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Circle Inspectors of Police was also allowed. In this Original Petition the action of respondents 1,3 and 4 in including the 6th respondent's name in the two select lists mentioned above is under challenge.

5. According to the petitioners, the 6th respondent is not entitled to be included in the select list of Sub Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Circle Inspectors of Police and of the Circle Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendents of Police, without challenging the promotions of the petitioners to the above posts effected long back. Since no challenge had been made by the 6th respondent against the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Circle Inspectors of Police or in the cadre of Deputy Superintendents of Police, the 6th respondent is disabled to challenge the same at this distance of time. It