JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of June, 2022 The petitioners entered the service of the first respondent Corporation as Assistants Grade- II on 1.12.2013. In the final seniority list of Assistant Grade II dated 03.01.2014 (Ext.P1), the petitioners are placed at serial Nos.163, 179, 149, 207, 203, 185, 211, 156, 146, 170 and 166 respectively. By the time Ext.P1 was issued, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Grade I (re-designated as Senior Assistant). While matters stood thus, the first respondent published Ext.P2 provisional seniority list of Senior Assistants. The seniority in Ext.P2 was fixed, reckoning the date of declaration of probation in the category of Assistant Grade II as the promotion date. This resulted in the petitioners being placed below persons like the party respondents with lesser service. Hence, petitioners and other aggrieved persons filed objections against the provisional seniority list. After considering the objections, first respondent issued Ext.P4 provisional seniority list. This time the seniority was fixed based on the date of joining duty in the entry cadre.

Aggrieved by Ext.P4, some of the employees filed W.P.(C) No.22659 of 2021 and obtained a direction to the first respondent to consider their objections against Ext.P4 provisional seniority list. Thereupon, the first respondent heard the both parties and issued Ext.P5 holding that, as per the Service Rules of the Corporation (Special Rules), the date of declaration of probation is the relevant date for promotion from the entry cadre post to the post of Assistant Grade I. Accordingly, Ext.P2 provisional rank list was held to be proper, being in tune with Rule 28(a) of KS&SSR and Rule

35 of the Special Rules. Thereafter, Ext.P7 internal memo was issued, publishing Ext.P2 provisional list as the final seniority list. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P2, P5 and P7 and to declare Ext.P4 as the correct seniority list to be finalised. The alternative prayer is to direct the respondents to prepare yet another seniority list in accordance with law, before effecting promotions to the cadre of Assistant Manager. 2. Adv.C.Unnikrishnan learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the impugned orders are patently illegal, inasmuch as they are issued in violation of the fundamental principle that promotions are to be effected based on seniority reckoned on the basis of the date of joining the entry post. It is submitted that Rule 28(a) of KS&SSR and Rule 35 of the Special Rules referred in Ext.P5 does not provide for promotions based on the date of declaration of probation. Rule 28(a) of KS&SSR merely prescribes successful completion of probation as eligibility for promotion and is not the decisive factor for fixing seniority. Likewise, Rule 35 of the Special Rules prescribes only the manner of fixing the seniority of an employee appointed by promotion. Moreover, it is categorically stated in Rule 35 that, date of order of promotion will be the criteria for fixing seniority in the promoted post. A combined reading of the above Rules indicates that seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant should be fixed based on the date of order of promotion and not the date of declaration of probation in the entry cadre. In support of the contention, reference is made to Rule 27(a) of the KS&SSR, as per which seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade.

3. Senior Advocate K.Jaju Babu appearing for the party respondents made the following submissions;

The respondents were appointed as Assistant Grade II vide Ext.R4(a) order dated 27.02.2012.

On completion of induction training, they were given postings as per Ext.R4(b) dated 03.03.2012. Later, probation of the party respondents in the category of Assistant Grade II was declared with effect from 27.02.2013, as per Ext.R4(c) order dated 05.11.2013. Thereafte