Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

In a Review Petition in a Review Petition in a Writ Petition, so to say, the pleadings run into 50 pages: the facts confuse, the pleas confound, the parties multiply, the claims conflict. Confounding this is a writ appeal. As a result, we tread carefully—so carefully that at times we retrace our steps—and may sound repetitive, not to be lost in the maze.

2. In this multi-layered saga, many employees have litigated at various stages of these cases. So, to avoid chaotic cross references, we identify the parties on either side as two sets of employees and call them “the First Batch” and “the Second Batch.” Either of these batches may have many employees coming together or fighting alone. But each batch of employees has a distinct character and claim. First they fought for appoint, later for seniority.

3. To get at a needle of right, we must rake through a haystack of litigation. We will.

I. Case in Brief:

4. Kerala State Electricity Board (“the Board”) is the employer. One of the cadres in its service ranks is Assistant Engineer (Electrical). For that post, the method of appointment follows the ratio 50 : 30 : 20. That is, 50% direct recruits; 30% diploma holders; and 20% certificate holders. And of that 50% reserved for the direct recruits, the Board’s in-service engineering graduates can apply for 10%. The in-service candidate’s incumbent cadre assumes no importance—only their length of service and qualification do.

5. In September 2001, the Government issued Ext.P1 and P2 circulars, inviting applications from engineering graduates working in the Board. By then, a set of employees (the First Batch) was qualified. So in the Ext.P3 list, prepared as per those circulars, contained the names of the first batch employees. In January 2002, the Board issued another circular proposing to appoint 38 employees; very soon, it issued Ext.P4 circular adding 37 more employees for appointment: all from the First Batch.

6. None of was appointed. Instead, the Board decided to entrust the task to the Kerala Public Service Commission (“PSC”). With the government’s leave, the Board amended the recruitment rules, too.

7. The employees feared that the changed recruitment policy would affect their service prospects. Fourteen of them—M.T. Ajithkumar and others—filed WP (C) No.22628 of 2003. Before the writ petition could be disposed of, the Board felt acute shortage of staff. In May 2004, the Board invited applications from the eligible in-service candidates. Thus, it provisionally appointed 81 in-service candidates as Assistant Engineers, under an order, dt.15.6.2004. It appointed another 14 employees under order, dt.1.1.2005. Eventually, this Court disposed of the writ petition through its judgment, dt. 21.06.2005: that the new recruitment-policy would apply prospectively and that the vacancies existing by then should be filled up through the old policy; that is, without reference to the PSC.

8. First, complaining of official inaction, the First Batch filed Contempt Case No. 1382 of 2005. But the Board, on its part, filed a writ appeal: W.A. No. 2564 of 2005. The writ appeal and the contempt case pending, Mohammad Rafi and 24 others (the Second Batch), filed W.P. (C) No. 33726 of 2005; similarly, William Vinayan Raj and 12 others (of the same Second Batch) filed 33749 of 2005. Both sets of employees in the two writ petitions claimed that they had been identically placed with the First Batch; that is, the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 22628 of 2003. And they wanted the same relief as was given in W.P. (C) No. 22628 of 2003.

9. In the meanwhile, the Government and the Board filed W.A. No.2564 of 2005; close on the heels of Contempt Case (COC) No.1170 of 2007 filed by the first Batch. In the appeal, five from the Second Batch—Mohammad Rafi, Saju R.L., Ajayakumar V. P., (from W.P. (C) No. 33726 of 2005), and Willia