Jagannadha Rao, CJ.

'The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was appointed on a provisional basis as a Junior Engineer under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules in the Public Works Department by an order dated 27-7-1971. When he was working in the post of Junior Engineer, he was advised by the Public Service Commission for the same post and in pursuance to the said advice, the Chief Engineer issued an appointment order dated 12-31973 and pursuant to that order the appellant joined service on 14-6-1973. His ranking is covered by his entry into the service on 14-6-1973. However, the pay and allowances were fixed on the basis that he was having continuous service from 7-8-1971. The appellant-writ petitioner now claims that he is entitled to count his regular service from 27-7-1971, the date on which he was provisionally appointed under R.9(a)(i) rather than from the date of his regular appointment, ie., 14-6-1973. It is stated that some representations had been given earlier but they were not in the records. The earliest representation on record is one dated 15-11-1988 (Ext.P5) seeking seniority from 27-7-1971. That would mean that the appellant has raised the issue nearly 15 years after he was regularly appointed. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on R.9(e). It is also stated that under Ext.P11 certain other officers had been given relaxation under R.39 of the Rules.

2. The learned single judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that seniority is governed by R.27(a) of the Rules and that that Rule does not permit any service rendered under R.9(a)(i) to be computed. It is against this judgment that the writ petitioner has come up in appeal.

3. Rule 27(a) reads as follows:

"27. Seniority. -(a) Seniority of a person in a service, class; category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade.

Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-rule 'appointment' shall not include appointment under R.9 or appointment by promotion under R.31."

It is clear from the Explanation that appointment under R.9(a)(i) will not confer any right for the purpose of seniority. This is so far as R.27 is concerned.

3. The next contention is based on R.9(a) of the Rules. The said Rule reads as follows:

"9(a)--Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Government may by order regularise the services of any person appointed directly under clause (i) of sub-rule (a), if such person

(i) has two years continuous service on 22nd December, 1973 in one category of post in the same department, or

(ii) is physically handicapped and was in service on any day during the period commencing on and from the 22nd December 1973 and ending with the 1st January 1974, or

(iii) is physically handicapped and has put in a total service of one year or more (including broken periods) during the period commencing on and from the 1st January 1968 and ending with the 31st December 1979, or

(iv) is physically handicapped and was in service on any day during the year 1981."

Reliance is now placed on the above said R.9(e) to say that the appellant-writ petitioner's seniority should be counted from 27-7-1971 inasmuch as he was in continuous service for more than two years. In our view, R.9(e) is not intended to cover such a situation.

4. The above said Rule came up for consideration before Sivaraman Nair, J. in Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (ILR1987 (2) Ker. 263). The learned judge held:

"Ordinarily, a person appointed under R.9(a)(i) of the Rules would have had no claim for any right for continuance in service or for regularisation in view of the specific provision contained in clause (iv) of rule 9(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. But for sub-rule (e) so added to R.9 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, petitioner would have had no right at all, either to conti