Manjula Chellur, C.J.

1. W.A. Nos. 407 and 475 of 2013 are filed by third parties to the Writ Petition with leave of the Court. W.A.No.531 of 2013 is filed by the second respondent - Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No.22046 of 2010. The party respondents are not before us. The controversy is with regard to fixation of seniority. The writ petitioners, challenging Exhibit P6 and relevant orders issued by the Corporation, approached the learned Single Judge seeking rectification of the anomaly in the seniority position in Exhibit P1 draft gradation list.

2. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners, who are party respondents herein, were also included in the rank list of reserve conductors way back in 1992 published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) on 18.5.1992. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioners were later appointed as empanelled conductors on 27.4.2000 and thereafter their services came to be regularised in the year 2007 by the Government of Kerala on the recommendation of the Corporation. In the year 2009, according to the writ petitioners, they realised that their seniority is not in correct position, as the reserve conductors appointed in 2001 were placed above them. Therefore, they approached the learned Single Judge seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading upto Ext.P6 and similar memos issued to all the petitioners and quash the same;

(ii) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P1 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same to the extent that the petitioners are placed at Serial No.4989-5132 below the persons appointed from list dated 18.9.2001, those appointed under the dying in harness scheme from 1996 to 2007, those regularized since 2001, those who were appointed through the Employment Exchange from 1996-2007 and the Special Recruitees appointed from 1996 to 2007.

(iii) Declare that the petitioners are liable to be treated as regularly appointed from out of the list dated 18.5.1992 as coming within the 1724 vacancies as per Exts.P2 and P3 judgments and to grant all consequential benefits on account of the same;

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to treat the petitioners as having been regularly advised and appointed from out of the list dated 18.5.1992 to the 1724 vacancies covered by Ext.P2 and P3 judgments and to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits;

(v) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. The claim of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was mainly based on Exhibits P2 judgment and P3 order of this Court. The said litigation was one pertaining to 1724 vacancies that came to be reported by the Corporation, but there was no advice as such by PSC, therefore, Exhibit P2 judgment and directions at Exhibit P3 order came to be passed. The relevant portion of Exhibit P2 judgment is, paragraph 15 which reads as under:

"15. In the above circumstances, Corporation should do well in getting the candidates included in the ranked list advised by the Public Service Commission appointed as Reserve Conductors. Learned counsel representing the Corporation voiced an apprehension that the conductors so appointed through Public Service Commission may swindle the money collected by them as conductors and so they must be asked to furnish security, as is being received from the empanelled conductors. We have not been told about any rule of law which requires a candidate advised by the Public Cservice Commission to furnish security for the post. But, to obviate the apprehension, we direct the candidates advised by the Public Service Commission to furnish Fidelity Guarantee Insurance for Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) or third party security.

Original petitions are disposed of as indicated herein befor