Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points with their corresponding references:

Subject and Parties - Subject: Administrative Law - Interpretation of Statutes [judgement_subject] - Act Referred: Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1959 – Rule 27(c) [judgement_act_referred] - Case Name: B.Premanand & Others versus Mohan Koikal & Others (!) - Court: Supreme Court of India (!) - Judges: Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ. (!) - Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 2684 of 2007 (!) - Date Decided: 16-3-2011 (!) - Dispute: Inter se seniority on the post of Block Development Officer between general category candidates (Respondents) and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates (Appellants) (!)

Legal Principles and Interpretation Rules - Important Point: Where there is no ambiguity, departing from literal interpretation would amount to amend the law which is not permissible. [judgement_subject] - Rule 27(c) Interpretation: Seniority is to be determined by the date of first effective advice made by the Public Service Commission to the State Government for appointment. (!) (!) - Judicial Review Limitation: High Court relying on equity, justice and good conscience rather than on law – Not correct. [judgement_act_referred] - First Rule of Construction: The first and foremost rule of construction is the literal construction. (!) (!) - Application of Other Rules: Other rules of interpretation like the mischief rule, purposive interpretation etc. can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results. (!) (!) - Equity vs. Law: When there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which is to prevail. Equity can only supplement the law when there is a gap in it, but it cannot supplant the law. (!) - Purposive Construction: In exceptional cases other rules of interpretation like purposive construction, Heydon's mischief rule etc. can be employed – Ordinarily, departure from the literal rule is not permissible. [judgement_act_referred] - Legislative Function: Function of the Court is only to expound the law and not to legislate. Departing from literal interpretation where there is no ambiguity amounts to amending the law, which is not permissible. [judgement_act_referred] - Mimansa Principles: Use of only Maxwell's Principles of Interpretation is not binding or mandatory; Mimansa Principles of Interpretation can be utilized in appropriate occasions. [judgement_act_referred] - Shruti Principle: In Mimansa, the literal rule of interpretation ('Shruti') will prevail over the 'Linga' (suggestive power). (!)

Facts and Findings - Appellants' Advice Date: First effective advice for the appellants was made by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 8.7.1992. (!) - Appellants' Joining Date: They joined between 13.8.1992 and 22.10.1992. (!) - Respondents' Advice Date: Advice for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was made on 6.4.1993. (!) - Respondents' Joining Date: They were appointed as B.D.O. on 28.9.1993 and joined between 6.10.1993 and 17.11.1993. (!) - Lower Court Ruling: Both the learned Single Judge and Full Bench held in favour of the respondents despite the rule being clear. (!) (!) - Court's Opinion: The Full Bench and Single Judge relied on equity rather than law, which is incorrect. (!) - Determination: Under Rule 27(c), the appellants are senior to the respondents because their advice was made prior. (!) (!) - Obstruction Argument Rejected: The argument that obstructions caused a delay in sending advice to respondents is rejected as Rule 27(c) looks at the date of advice, not the rank list publication. (!) - Precedent Relied Upon: Dalilah Sojah vs. State of Kerala & Others is distinguished. (!) - Precedents Cited: M/s. Hiralal Ratanlal vs. STO; Swedish Match AB vs. Securities and Exchange Board, India; Emperor v. Benoarilal Sarma; CIT vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal; Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. C.I.T.; Narsiruddin vs. Sita Ram Agarwal; Bhaiji vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla; J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan; State of Jharkhand & Anr. vs. Govind Singh; Jinia Keotin vs. K.S. Manjhi; Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society vs. Swaraj Developers; Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit vs. State of Maharashtra; S. Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra; Patangrao Kaddam vs. Prithviraj Sajirao Yadav Deshmugh; District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Company. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Final Finding: Impugned judgment cannot be sustained. [Finding of the Court]

Order - Appeal Allowed: This appeal is allowed. (!) - Lower Judgments Set Aside: The impugned judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge are set aside. (!) - Writ Petition Dismissed: The writ petition filed by the private respondents before the High Court is dismissed. (!) - Costs: No costs. (!)