The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Article 313 of the Constitution of India and the proviso to Rule 1 of the KS&SSR to determine the applicability of the KS&SSR, particularly Rule 27(b), to police services.

Jagannadha Rao, CJ.

This Writ Petition has been referred to a Division Bench by an order of a learned Single Judge dated 1-10-1985. The point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called the 'KS& SSR) are applicable, or are not applicable, to the police personnel under the service of the State Government.

2. The facts of the case are as follows. The writ petitioner is advised by the Employment Exchange, Palghat, for being appointed to the post of Women Police Constable. She, along with the fourth respondent, was seeded by the Superintendent of Police, Palghat (the second respondent), and were directed to report for medical examination before the Superintendent of the District Hospital. The provisional list would show the name of the petitioner as first among the 10 candidates provisionally selected as per Ext. P1, while the fourth respondent was shown at SI. No. 3. Subsequently the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on 1-4-1968 as per Ext. P2 and her probation was declared on 30-9-1970, and the probation of the fourth respondent was declared on 20-10-1970. The seniority list of police constables was prepared as per Ext. P3 dated 1-4-1971 in which the petitioner was shown at SI. No. 2, she being elder to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent was shown at SI. No. 4. It is the contention of the fourth respondent that Ext. P3 seniority list is contrary to Rule 27(b) of the KS&SSR, inasmuch as the appointing authority was bound to pass a separate order in relation to seniority and should not have been merely guided by the initial list prepared at the time of medical examination. While things stood thus, in a state of dispute, the question of promotion arose. A select list of Women Police Constables fit for promotion as Naik had to be prepared. It was so prepared, as per Ext. P4, and the petitioner was shown at SI. No. 1, while the fourth respondent was shown at SI. No. 3. Obviously this was on the basis of Ext. P1 ranking which according to the fourth respondent was not a ranking fixed in accordance with Rule 27(b) of the KS & SSR. On the basis of the select list prepared as per Ext. P4, posting orders were issued on 14-7-1976, as per Ext. P5, promoting the petitioner as Naik in preference to the fourth respondent. It appears that in the meantime the fourth respondent had represented to the Inspector General of Police, and he had directed a proper fixation of the ranking as per Rule 27(b) by the second respondent. Pursuant to a representation made during that period by the writ petitioner, on 22-9-1976 the Inspector General of Police informed the petitioner that as per the provisions contained in Rule 27(b) of the KS & SSR, the seniority of the petitioner, and the fourth respondent, had to be determined by the appointing authority. It is pointed out in the original appointment order No. D.0.117/69 dated 1-4-1968 of the second respondent that the name of the fourth respondent was shown as SI. No.1 while the name of the petitioner was shown as SI. No. 3, and as such the seniority should have been fixed strictly in accordance with D.O. No. 117/68 of the Superintendent of Police, Palghat. Thereafter a revised gradation list, Ext. P9, was issued showing the fourth respondent as senior to the petitioner in the category of police constables and on that basis a fresh select list of police constables fit for promotion as Naiks was prepared in supersession of the earlier select list, Ext. P4. In the select list, Ext. P10 dated 15-6-1977, the fourth respondent was shown as senior to the petitioner. In accordance therewith, an order of promotion was issued on 27-6-1977 as per Ext. P11, promoting and posting the fourth respondent as Naik and the petitioner as Lance Naik. It is no doubt true that the post of lance naik is inferior to that of Naik. We have also on record the proceedings, Ext. P13 dated 21-7-1976 of the Inspecto