1. I have read the judgment of Isaac J. I agree, but would tike to add a few words of my own. The facts have been stated in the judgment of Isaac J.

2. The short question is whether the 4th respondent is entitled to claim the benefit of the proviso to R.27 (a) and (b) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). I shall extract the R.27 (a) and (b) and the proviso.

"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. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under the Rules, his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation.

(b) The appointing authority shall, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix the order of preference among them; and seniority shall be determined in accordance with it:

Provided that nothing contained in sub-rules (a) and (b) above shall be deemed to have superseded the orders of the Travancore-Cochin Government in R. Dis. No. 8207/50/CS dated 7th May, 1951 as subsequently clarified in respect of any person who was a member of any service on the date of coming into force of these rules."

3. R.1 states:

"Scope of the Genera I Rules. The rules in this part shall apply to all State and Subordinate Services and the holders of all posts, whether temporary or permanent in any such service, appointed thereto before, or after, the date on which these rules come into force as provided in sub-rule (b) of R.1 in Part I except to the extent otherwise expressly provided (a) by or under any law for the time being in force, or (b) in respect of any member of such service by a contract or agreement subsisting between such member and the State Government."

4. R.1 makes it clear that the Rules also apply to those who were appointed before the date on which the rules came into force. So the 4th respondent though appointed before the date on which the Rules came into force, that is 17-12-1958, will also be governed by the Rules. But this does not mean that the Rules have retrospective effect. The Rules will apply to those who were in service on 17-12-1958, and any promotions for instance thereafter will be governed by the provisions therein unless the proviso applied-All the promotions in the case took place after the Rules came into force. Seniority will therefore have to be determined by the date of the order of first appointment (rule 27 (a)) unless the 4th respondent could claim the benefit of the proviso. The proviso, I think, will only apply to those who were governed by the G. O. of the 7th May, 1951, on the date on which the Rules came into force, i. e.17-12-1958, for the seniority of those not governed by the proviso at the time of promotion will have to be determined by applying R.27 (a). This also appears to me to be the plain meaning of the wording of the proviso. If that is the meaning to be given, and I think that should be the meaning, any executive order that is passed after 17-12-1958 saying that the benefit of the G. O. of 7-5-1951 will apply to any class of employees governed by the Rule will be against the Rules and will have the effect of attempting to alter the consequences of applying the Rules. This, of course„ cannot be done by executive orders, and so Exts. P1 and P2, which are only executive orders, cannot change the meaning of the proviso. Though reference was made to a G. O. No. S(D) 2-43405/56/PD dated 25-2-1957 (passed before the Rules came into force), we are not satisfied that the said G. O. made the principles of the G. O. of 7-5-1951 applicable. The G. O. is in these terms:

"Consequent on the Reorganisation of the States from 1111956, the question of unifying service rules, Departmental Manuals