The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lien of a member of a service to a post in the parent Department is not lost automatically when he joins another Department. The judgment also clarified the conditions under which a person is considered to be substantively appointed to a permanent post.

S. Sankarasubban, J.

The above cases have been referred to the Full Bench as the correctness of the Division Bench judgment in W. A. 175/80,305/83,980/87 was doubted. The question turns round the true scope and content of R.8 Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.S.S.R.').

2. We shall first deal with the Writ Appeals. Both the Writ Appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P. No. 6380/89. In W. A. No. 69/95, there are 15 appellants of which appellants 1 to 4 are respondents 3,5,11 and 17. The rest of the appellants filed the appeal after getting leave from the Division Bench, The additional fifth respondent got himself impleaded in W.A. No. 69/95. W.A. No. 171/95 is filed by respondents 8,10,19,22 to 26 in the Original Petition. Petitioners in O.P. No. 6380/89 were Village Extension Officers of the Rural Development Department. They joined as Village Extension Officer Grade II. Third respondent in the Original Petition also joined as Village Extension Officer, Grade II. Third respondent is impleaded in the Original Petition in a representative capacity.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is as follows: The third respondent and others were selected for appointment in the Co-operative Department as Junior Inspector/ Junior Auditor. After they were selected for appointment, the above persons joined the service of Co-operative Department. They relinquished their rights in the Rural Development Department. The lien, if any, in the Rural Development Department had been terminated. Hence, the case of the petitioners is that the services of the above persons in the Rural Development Department should not be taken into consideration. But contrary to this, the names of the third respondent and others were still retained in the seniority list of Village Extension Officers Grade II in the Rural Development Department and they were also given promotion as Village Extension Officers while allowing them to continue in other duties. They challenged Exts. P2 to P5 by which these Officers were given promotion in the parent Department. In the Original Petition, there is a further allegation that the above persons are ordered to be reverted to the Rural Development Department. Hence, the prayer in the Original Petition was to quash Exts. P2 to P5 and also to quash the reversion granted to such persons to Rural Development Department.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 in the Original Petition, viz., State of Kerala and Commissioner for Rural Development have filed a joint counter affidavit. In that counter affidavit, it is stated as follows: 20% of the post of Junior Inspectors/ Auditors in the Co-operative Department are reserved for Village Extension Officers. These appointments are to be made by transfer. Accordingly, persons like the third respondent and others, who were qualified to become Junior Co-operative Inspectors, applied to the Public Service Commission and they were selected for being appointed as Junior Inspectors. Counter affidavit says that it is not necessary to relinquish their rights in the Department for relieving them from the Department. They are at liberty to come back to this Department so long as they do not require a lien or confirmation in other Departments and they are willing to be reverted to this Department. The lien of those Villages Extension Officers, who are on other duty in other Departments have not been cut-off or suspended by this Department as per R.18 of the Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'KSR'). It is because of the above facts that those Officers were given promotions in the parent Department. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows:

"Relinquishment of the right in this Department is not a condition for accepting appointment in other Departments and to relieve them from this Department. They have lien in this Department so long as they do not acquire lien or confirmation in other Depa