SUKUMARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question in service law, an apparent conflict between R. 7 (b) and R. 27 (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS & SSR for short) and the correctness of the decision in Dayanandan v. Public Service Commission (1985 KLJ 475) arise for determination in this Writ appeal.

(2.) 1n 1964, the Public Service Commission conducted a common test to select candidates for appointment as Lower Division Clerks in several departments in this State. The appellant and the second respondent were selected and included in the common rank list, the appellant securing the 47th rank and the second respondent, the 103rd rank. The appellant on advice by the commission was appointed to the Public Relations Department on 27-5-1966. He was, however, retrenched for want of vacancy in that department on 6-9-1967. Thereafter, he re-registered with the public Service Commission as provided in R. 7 of the KS and SSR. He got an appointment in the Finance Department of the Secretariat on 28-10-1967 as per the advice of the commission dated 10-10-1967. He is continuing in the department.

(3.) THE appellant obtained the benefit of this proviso and in fact, claimed rights available under this provision for a fresh advice and an appointment to the Finance Department. He got himself re-registered in the office of the Commission, after he was retrenched from the Public Relations department. He was advised afresh by the Commission in October, 1967. He was appointed on that basis. He lost even his right of probation in the Public relations Department from which he was discharged. THE question is whether even then, be can rely on R. 27 (c) of the KS and SSR for claiming seniority on the basis of the original advice in 1966 when he was appointed in the Public Relations department.