Ashok Bhushan, J

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the writ petitioner in W.P (C).No.28771/2004, challenging judgment dated 21.11.2011 by which judgment, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the appeal are:

The appellant (referred to herein as 'writ petitioner') was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Education Department. Subsequently, he was appointed as Legal Assistant Grade-II in the Law Department in the Secretariat on 7.11.1980. He was promoted as Legal Assistant Grade-I on 28.1.1983. While working as Legal Assistant Grade-I, he applied to the Public Service Commission (PSC) for selection to the post of Block Development Officer under the method of appointment by transfer. PSC selected the petitioner and advised for appointment as Block Development Officer. The petitioner was appointed as Block Development Officer by order dated 29.4.1988. He joined duty as Block Development Officer on 2.5.1988. By order dated 23.12.1989, he was promoted in the Law Department as Section Officer. However, the petitioner continued to work as Block Development Officer. Promotion list dated 20.10.1998 was issued in the Law Department promoting Section Officers as Under Secretaries in which list, name of the petitioner was not included. The petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent to consider his case for promotion as Under Secretary. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 5.10.1998 to the Law Secretary to Government for reversion to the Law Department with consequential benefits. Petitioner's case for reversion was considered, but no final decision could be taken in his favour. Petitioner, in the meantime, was promoted as Assistant Development Commissioner in the Rural Development Department in the year 1998. The petitioner submitted further representation dated 19.10.2002 to the Minister for Revenue and Law for reversion to the Law Department. The petitioner received a letter dated 15.1.2003 intimating that his request cannot be considered in view of the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.14996/98. The petitioner submitted another representation on 2.2.2003 and thereafter filed W.P(C).No.14893 of 2004 before this Court seeking a direction to pass order in the matter of reversion of the petitioner to the Law Department with consequential benefits. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 7.6.2004, directing the second respondent therein, Secretary to Government, to consider the case of the petitioner. An order dated 8.7.2004 was issued confirming large number of Block Development Officers, in which list, name of the petitioner was also included. The State Government ultimately passed order dated 3.9.2004 in compliance with the judgment of this Court dated 7.6.2004 in W.P(C).No.14893 of 2004 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reversion to the Law Department. The Government held that since the petitioner is confirmed in the Rural Development Department, he cannot be reverted to the Law Department. The order dated 3.9.2004 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P(C). No.28771 of 2004, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 21.11.2011 giving rise to this Writ Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal, has submitted that under Rule 8 Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS & SSR), 1958, the petitioner had a right to be reverted to his parent department, but the State Government erroneously rejected his claim. He submitted that a Full Bench of this Court in Balakrishnan Nair v. Ram Mohan Nair (1998 (1) KLT 766 (FB) had laid down that the benefit of Rule 8 Part II KS & SSR is available to the member of a service getting appointment in another service on the basis of applications invited by the Government. It is submitted that at the time when the petitioner had submitted representation in the year 1998, he was no