Promotions must be based on rank lists established through qualification assessments, not solely seniority; deviation from this standard may render previous promotions invalid.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 order, whereby the petitioners were reverted from the cadre of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) to Masappady cadre.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

Petitioners are presently working as Devaswom Assistant Officers in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk in the 1^st respondent Board. The petitioners were originally appointed on daily wage basis during 1987 and continued till 1995. As per order dated 01.01.1996, issued by the 1^st respondent Board, the 1^st petitioner was regularized in service in the cadre of Last Grade Service, whereas the 2^nd petitioner was appointed as Last Grade Servant as per order dated 18.10.1996. The Board promulgated the Rules for the appointment in the regular services of the Board by the notification dated 01.02.1988. By virtue of Rule 22 of the said Rules a person shall be recruited directly only against the vacancy of LDC and equivalent posts and Rule 26 protect the interest of employees in the institution and 25% of the vacancy in open competition by direct recruitment is reserved for the employees. While so, an order was issued on 04.01.1992, by the 1^st respondent, deciding to give promotion to the Last Grade Employees of the Board who have passed S.S.L.C and got minimum service of 5 years in the establishment as Devaswom Assistants, equivalent to the post of Lower Division Clerk. The Board introduced written test and interview as the method for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk from Cadre of Last Grade Employees in the Board. Petitioners attended the written test and was included in the list of eligible candidates to be called for the interview for promotion to the post of LDC from Last Grade Servant and after the interview, Ext.P1 rank list was published. The 1^st petitioner was assigned Rank No.32 and the 2^nd petitioner, Rank No.26. Some of the Last Grade Employees based on the Order dated 04.01.1992, wherein the Board has taken a decision to give promotion to the Last Grade Employees of the Board who have passed S.S.L.C and got minimum service of 5 years, approached this Court filing O.P.No.29999 of 2002 and the same was disposed of by this Court by directing the Board to consider the claim of the petitioners therein in accordance with Rules. Later, some other Last Grade Employees filed W.P(C) No.21146 of 2004 challenging Notification dated 11.12.2003 by which the Board conducted the written test and interview for promotion, in which the petitioners were assigned rank No.32 and 26 respectively. By Ext.P2 judgment the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. Though Ext.P2 judgment was challenged till the Apex Court, filing S.L.P No.2436 of 2004, the same was also dismissed. The petitioners in Ext.P2 judgment along with others filed W.P (C) No.36137 of 2007 again claiming promotion based on the Order dated 04.01.1992 suppressing the dismissal of the earlier writ petition as per Ext.P2 judgment. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Board to pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioners therein. Thereafter by the order dated 26.02.2008, the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.36137 of 2007 were provisionally promoted subject to the approval of this Court. Thereafter the Board filed D.B.A. No. 22 of 2008 before this Court for approval of the appointment made by order dated 26.02.2008. This Court by Ext.P3 order dated 09.04.2008, provisionally permitted the appointment and promotion made by Board by its order dated 26.02.2008, considering the urgent requirements. But it was observed that as soon as the written test and interview for the promotion to the