The main legal point established in the judgment is that the date of advice for appointment by the Public Service Commission determines seniority, and training should not be treated as equivalent to appointment.

1. Training may be a qualification prescribed for appointment; training may be a requirement demanded after appointment. Dass the period of training affect the question of seniority under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS & SSR for short)? This, therefore, is the question posed for consideration in this Writ Appeal.

2. The Writ Appellants, Diploma holders in Engineering, were advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Instructor Grade II on 8th August, 1966. Both of them joined duty in October 1966. Respondents 3 and 4 did not apply for the post of Instructors, but applied, pursuant to a different notification for the post of Instructor Trainees. The notification stated that the applications were invited 'for selection for training and subsequent appointment' as Instructors. They were selected as trainees and advised for training in July 1966 and were subsequently appointed as Instructor Grade II only in August 1968, about two years after the appellants were appointed. Respondents 3 and 4, however, have been assigned ranks 621 and 599. given seniority over the appellants who have been given ranks 629 and 635. Contending that they are entitled to seniority over respondents 3 and 4, the appellants filed the writ petition, OP No. 3053 of 1981, challenging the gradation list and claiming appropriate reliefs. This claim was resisted by the State and the respondents on the plea that the date of advice by the Public Service Commission is the relevant date under R.27 (c) of the KS & SSR and as respondents 3 and 4 were advised in July 1966 and appellants were advised only in August 1966, they were entitled to seniority. It is also contended that the period of training is "duty" as defined in R.2(6) of the KS & SSR and has to be reckoned for purposes of seniority. The learned single judge rejected the contentions of the appellants, upheld the contention of the State and respondents 3 and 4 and dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

3. To deprive a person appointed earlier, of his seniority based on that appointment, and to confer seniority on a person appointed later, very strong reasons backed by clear statutory provisions are required. We shall, therefore, refer to the relevant rules in KS & SSR for this purpose.

4. R.27(a) and (c) relevant for our purpose read as follows:

"27. Seniority (a) Seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless be 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."

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless be has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class, category or grade and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are arranged in the advice list.

xxx xxx xxx xxx ".

5. The period of training is treated as period of 'duty' in R.2(6) (a) as follows:-"A person is said to be "on duly" as a member of service.

(a) When he is performing the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or is undergoing the probation, instruction or training prescribed for such service:

xxx xxx xxx xxx"

6. The seniority in any service, class, category or grade is therefore primarily fixed with reference to the date of first appointment to service, class, category or grade. The date of first appointment may vary depending on the place where the appointing authority is situate or for any other administrative reason, though all the persons may be selected and included in the same rank list and advised for appointment at the same time. When therefore the Public Ser