T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The question referred for decision of the Full Bench is the following:

"Whether an employee who has secured a district-wise appointment when transferred on request to another district before completing five years will have to surrender his entire five years of service, so as to claim seniority in the transferred unit even if the transfer is after one year of his appointment?

2. W.A. No.1466/2006 is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11178/2005, W.A. No.802/2007 is filed against the order in R.P.No.731/2006 filed against the same judgment and W.P.(C) No.26361/2006 is filed, challenging the order Ext.P4 by which revised seniority list of Excise Guards for the period from 1.1.1989 to 30.6.2000 was published in implementation of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11178/2005.

3. W.P.(C) No.11178/2005 was disposed of along with the connected writ petitions, viz. 16863/2003, 29059/2004, 11178/2005, 11242/2005, 12802/2005 and 16332/2005 by a common judgment. W.A.No.1505/2006 filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.29059/2004 was dismissed by a Division Bench consisting of K.A. Abdul Gafoor and Justice K.P. Balachandran, JJ. on 19.9.2006, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge (K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.) (as he then was). When W.A. No.1466/2006 came up for hearing before another Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice S.R. Bannurmath and Kurian Joseph, J. (as he then was), the matter was referred to the Full Bench doubting the correctness of the judgment in W.A. No.1505/2006.

4. We heard learned Senior Counsel Shri P. Ravindran and learned Counsel Shri B. Gopakumar, appearing for the appellants/petitioners, Shri P.V. Mohanan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and Smt. Girija Gopal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

5. The dispute, shortly stated, is one concerning the principles for fixing the seniority. As far as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.11178/2005 are concerned, they were appointed as Excise Guards in the Excise Division, Palakkad. The contesting respondents 5 to 15 therein, who are appellants in W.A. Nos.1466/2006 and 802/2007, were appointed in the Excise Divisions Ernakulam, Kannur and Kasaragod. They were appointed through the Public Service Commission and were transferred to Palakkad Division as per various orders produced as Exts.P3 to P5, before completing less than one year of service in the respective Excise Divisions. The present dispute arose when the final seniority list of Excise Guards of Palakkad Division was published as per Ext.P13. The petitioners were included in the provisional seniority list of Excise Guards in Palakkad Division, Ext.P7, and respondents 5 to 15 were not included therein, but were included in the seniority lists published in their respective district of appointment. But later, respondents 5 to 15 were put enblock as seniors to the petitioners in Ext.P13. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions accepting the contentions of the writ petitioners that the transferees will get seniority in the new unit only after completion of five years from the date of their initial appointment, as they were eligible for transfer only in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 Government Orders which have put a restriction on inter district transfer before completion of five years. The said view has been upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1505/2006.

6. Shri P. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel contended that as far as the appointment of Excise Guards are concerned, they were appointed in particular divisions and the appointment is not district-wise. The Government Orders like Exts.P1 and P2 providing for inter district transfer and the restrictions therein will not, therefore, apply to them. As far as the appointment and transfer of Excise Guards are concerned, they are governed by Rules 10 and 11 of the Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service Special Rules, 1974 and as empowered