The seniority of the petitioners who were originally recruited as L.D. Typists in the respondent-Board and were later promoted to the higher cadre of Junior Personal Assistant, which is the re-designated post of Stenographer (Selection Grade) based on the test qualification was stated as shattered and unsettled by Ext.P8 issued by the Board allegedly in compliance with the directions given by the Apex Court as per the decision-Kerala State Electricity Board vs. N. Sukesen and others [(1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 397] which, hence, was sought to be intercepted by filing O.P.No. 4729 of 1998, leading to Ext.P10 judgment directing the respondent-Board to look into the aspect and pass final orders as specified.

2. In furtherance to Ext. P10 verdict, the respondent-Board considered the matter and issued Ext.P11 order whereby Ext.P8 was upheld, simultaneously explaining the scope and ambit of the same specifying that pursuant to the re-fixation of the seniority bringing the petitioners to a lower position in the ladder, the salary already disbursed to them by virtue of their earlier promotion had to be recovered as excess payment. The petitioners who retired from the service with effect from 30.06.2006 and 31.01.2006 respectively, have challenged the sustainability of the proceedings of the respondent-Board contending that the impugned orders are beyond jurisdiction in so far as they exceed the mandate given by the Honourable Supreme Court as per the decision reported in (1996) 9 SCC 397 (cited supra), which was cited as the basis for passing the impugned orders.

3. The petitioners commenced their service under the Board as L.D. Typists on 210.1970 and 05.03.1971 respectively and by virtue of the test qualification they got promoted to the higher post of Stenographer Gr.II, Stenographer Gr.I and Stenographer Selection Grade (which is re-designated as Junior Personal Assistant). At the time of granting promotion to the petitioners, test qualification was essential as per the relevant Board orders and for the very same reason, the petitioners could march over the seniors who did not have such test qualification, to be promoted. Subsequently, the Board took a policy decision to dispense with the test qualification, whereupon, the senior persons came before this court by filing O.P.No.1082 of 1979 for re-fixation of their seniority stating that it should be reckoned with effect from the date of their provisional promotion. This led to Ext. P3 judgment which was subsequently challenged by some other aggrieved persons (other than the petitioners herein) by filing W.A. No.322 of 1982 and it was finalized as per Ext. P4 judgment, where some additional observation (which is stated as not sought for) was also made. Pursuant to the above verdict, the respondent/Board considered the matter and issued Ext.P7 seniority list where the petitioners herein were given placement at Sl.Nos.43 and 44 in accordance with the settled seniority of the petitioners as being enjoyed by them for more than two decades.

4. While so, the respondent-Board allegedly in implementation of the direction of the Apex Court as per the decision reported in 1996 (9)SCC 397, (with regard to the integration of Board Secretariat Establishment and General Establishment), issued Ext.P8, shifting the petitioners to a lower position (at Sl.Nos.28 and 29) on comparison with Smt.D.Sukumari Amma (Sl.No.10) who had all along been much junior to the petitioners. The respondent also published Ext.P9 showing the position of the petitioners and Sukumari Amma under two different Heads (stated as prepared in accordance with the suggestions A and B) based on the verdict of the Apex Court. Under the list A, the petitioners were shown at Sl.Nos.9 and 10, over and above D. Sukumari Amma, who was placed at Sl.No.14. Under the list B, the petitioners were brought down as shown in Ext. P8 itself. It is stated that between the two suggestions A and B, the Board gave approval to suggestion