The main legal point established in the judgment is that the retrospective regularisations and promotions did not violate the rights of direct recruits founded on R.18(a) and 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958.

1. These two appeals arise from O. P. No. 1308/79 filed by one T. M. Somarajan who had commenced service as Sub Inspector of Police from 1965. He was a direct recruit and his date of advice was 23-2-1965. In September, 1969 the I.G. of Police published Ext. P3 seniority list of Sub Inspectors, including therein the names of all persons directly recruited to the cadre between 1-11-56 and 31-7-69, and all Head Constables duly selected and promoted to the cadre between the said two dates. Based on his rank in this list, Somarajan was included in the 1972 select list of officers eligible for promotion as Circle Inspectors. In 1977, however, the I.G. drew up Ext. P4(a) revised seniority list of Sub Inspectors, assigning higher ranks to some of the promotees in Ext. P3, and even bringing in a few more promotees and placing them above Somarajan. In this process of 'retrospective regularisation', Somarajan became junior to many Sub Inspectors who were till then his juniors. And this affected his position in the cadre of Circle Inspectors also; in fact, a revised select list of Circle Inspectors (Ext. P6) was published in October, 1978. His representation against Ext. P6 was turned down by Government as per Ext. P8 communication dated 3-2-1979. It was under these circumstances that O.P. No. 1308/79 was filed, mainly on the ground that the retrospective regularisation and notional promotions recognised by Ext. P4(a) were violative of his right to seniority based on the date of advice, in accordance with R.27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 in the Original Petition Raman Thampi and V. T. Mathai were impleaded in a representative capacity i. e., to represent all those who were likely to be affected by the result of the Writ Petition. The ranks of Thampi and Mathai in Ext. P3 were 419 and 623, and the dates assigned to them for regular promotion as Sub Inspectors were 22-9-65 and 26-8-68. As Somarajan's date of advice was 23-2-65, he was placed as serial No. 377. Ext. P4(a) however proceeded on the basis that Thampi was eligible for promotion as S. I. from 24-7-1964. Others also got similar benefits, with the result that Thampi's rank was refixed as 382, and Somarajan's, as 415. Mathai continued to be lower down, but in 1978, Government passed Ext. Al order holding that he too was eligible for inclusion in the 1963 select list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspectors. And the I. G. passed Ext. A2 consequential order amending Ext. P4(a), placing Mathai just below serial No. 384 and refixing his notional date of promotion as 9-10-1964. The dispute was thus between direct recruits and promotees, and the question was whether the latter could be given notional promotions effective from dates anterior to the date of advice of a direct recruit. Despite this general nature of the controversy, Thampi and Mathai did not enter appearance in the Original Petition. No other promotee had also come forward, with the result that the Court was left with the usual counter-affidavit of the State asserting that everything had been done properly.and that on a review of promotion made from 1960 onwards, it was found necessary to assign earlier dates to some of the promotees. At the time of hearing, two orders were made available for the Court's perusal. One related to Thampi and it showed that though he was originally included only in the 1965 select list, some review had disclosed that he was eligible for inclusion in the list for 1963, as some of his juniors had been included in that list. The other was Ext. Al relating to Mathai, which also proceeded on the basis that he was fit for inclusion in the 1963 list, though he bad originally been included in the 1968 list only. The learned judge who heard the matter was not impressed with these bald explanations. His lordship thought that the review was "primarily concerned with the dispute between the Head Constables inter se" and that th