K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. W.P(C). Nos.31493 of 2015, 31504 of 2015 and 1191 of 2016 all relate to the same issue and the resolution of the same would effectively dispose of WP(C) No.28256 of 2015. Hence, the three writ petitions are first considered and from among them, the documents are referred to from WP(C) No.31504 of 2015 and if otherwise, the writ petitions are specifically mentioned.

2. The entire controversy revolves around the issue of deciding the seniority of thosepersons, regularized on 18.03.1996 as per Ext.P1; whether the same has to be on the basis of the date of birth or the date of entry into service as a daily waged employee. All the petitioners herein, were regularized on 16.03.1996 as per Ext.P1 along with others, totaling 30 in different designations. The issue is confined to the 22 out of the 24 regularized as Assistants, by Ext.P1 and inter se seniority between them.

3. On the regularization in 1996, the 24 Assistants were shown serially in a list appended to Ext:P-1 showing their educational qualifications, date of birth etc: without assigning any seniority. After regularization, Ext:R-1(c) provisional seniority list was published, wherein 22 persons, remaining of the24 persons, were assigned seniority on the basis of date of birth. No objections having been received the list was finalized as per Ext:R-1(d). The said seniority list was objected to and the Government considering the same, purportedly to make the assignation of seniority compliant with Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (for brevity 'KS&SSR'), attempted to modify the list finalized, by publishing another provisional seniority list as per Ext:R-1(e) assigning seniority in accordance with the date of entry into service as a daily waged employee. The person, who entered service as a daily waged employee, was given seniority above a person engaged later; though the regularization of all the 25 persons occurred on one date, ie.16.03.1996. This was on the undisputed premise of those daily waged employees having continued uninterruptedly after their respective initial appointments.

4. The Board however realizing that the provisional list as per Ext:R-1(e) was in violation of the earlier final list published; kept Ext:R-1(e)in abeyance by Ext:R-1(f) & (g). Clarification was also sought from Government, by letter dated 27.11.2002 as is seen from Ext:R-1(g). The government replied by Ext:P-2, directing preparation of seniority list in accordance with the provisions in Rule 27(c) of KS&SSR. In obedience with the direction issued by the Government, the seniority on regularization was finalized as per Ext.P3 dated 09.06.2006 ie: on the basis of date ofentry into daily waged employment. None challenged the same.

5. Further noticing the fact that the controversy having been kept alive for all these years and none who were regularized could be considered for promotion, the Board issued Ext:P-4 and 17 senior LD Clerks were promoted as UD Clerks. Further promotions also were made of 12 UD Clerks, to various higher posts by Ext:P-5 dated 11.09.2006. This was on the basis of the seniority assigned as per Ext.P3. Again none challenged these promotions. The persons so assigned seniority and promoted,continued as such for long years.

6. The entire issue was re-opened by Ext.P6, after six years. By Ext.P6 dated 17.10.2012. The Chief Executive Officer of the Board, basedon a Government direction referred to as item No.4 in the said order, directed that the entire seniority be revised with respect to the 22 regularized workers, on the basis of their date of birth. It is not clear as to what prompted the Government to issue such directions, since none had challenged the seniority finalized or the promotions made.

7. The persons, who were aggrieved with that order and who had been considered seniors and also promoted, based on their settled seniority approached this Court by writ petitions challenging Ext.P6 order of the Chief Executive Officer. This