The court emphasized the application of rule 27 of the Kerala State Engineering Subordinate Service Rules in determining the seniority between the petitioners and the respondents.

T. Chandraskhara Menon, J.

1. The petitioners are working as First Grade Overseers in the Civil Wing of the Kerala State Electricity Board, the first respondent in the petition. Recruitment of the post of Overseers and Junior Engineers to the Board are governed by the Kerala State Engineering Subordinate Service Rules as they have been adopted by the Board as Regulations framed under the Electricity (Supply) Act. For appointment to the post of Second Grade Overseers the provision is that 75 per cent of the posts should be filled by direct recruitment from the open market subject to qualification prescribed, and 25 per cent were to be filled up by promoting Tracers already in service who possessed the requisite qualifications. The qualification for promotion was of a lower standard than that for direct recruitment.

2. By a notification dated 26th July 1962 the Board invited applications for 100 posts of 2nd Grade Overseers. Before the selection as per this notification was made, a second notification was issued on 21st June 1963 for 166 posts inclusive of 100 posts already notified. In the second notification it had been specified that those who had applied as per the first notification need not apply again because those applications would also be considered along with the applications received in pursuance of second notification. It is how the petitioners were selected along with others. They were included in the 'advice list' issued by the Board consisting of 176 selected people. Only 146 out of these joined service. According to the petitioners, as they joined as per this advice their seniority has to be reckoned from the date of advice, namely 1st April 1965.

3. Respondents 3 to 22 were persons who were promoted by order dated 23rd April 1965 from the post of Tracers in the services of the Board to the post of Second Grade Overseers. According to the petitioners, most of them had commenced service in September 1963 or thereafter as Tracers so that when the vacancies to which the petitioners had been appointed arose, these persons were not in service. It is also alleged that those who had been in service had not acquired the necessary qualification for promotion as Second Grade Overseers when the notifications pursuant to which petitioners were appointed were issued. The petitioners' allegation is that these respondents had no claim for promotion in their favour at the time when appointments to Second Grade Overseers posts by direct recruitment were resorted to by direct recruitment in 1962 and 1963.

4. The petitioners' case is that in the seniority list of Second Grade Overseers the petitioners and other direct recruits appointed with them were rightly shown as seniors to respondents 3 to 22. On that basis the petitioners had been promoted as First Grade Overseers.

5. Respondents 3, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 18 jointly filed a writ petition as O.P. No. 4784 of 1969 before this court claiming that at the time of appointing 146 direct recruits, the ratio of 3:1 should have been applied; that is, though they were appointed only on 23rd April 1965, their seniority should be reckoned along with the direct recruits taken in by advice list of 1st April 1965 and fitted into the combined list by ranking one promo tee after every 3 direct recruits. The petitioners got themselves impleaded in the original petition as additional respondents and opposed the prayer. It would appear that when the original petition was pending the Board acting through the Secretary practically upheld the claim of the petitioners in O.P. No. 4784 of 1969. The petitioners alleged that on coming to know of this they made representations to the Board, objecting to this course. Ext. P-4 is said to be a true copy of the second petitioner's representation. No orders have been passed on that.

6. I would extract in full from the original petition what the petitioners allege to have happened at the time of hearing of O.P. No. 4784 of 1969.

''When O.P. No. 4784 of 1969 cam