JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are now Assistant Directors in the dairy development department. All these three persons and one Philipose Thomas originally belonged to the animal husbandry department. All of them were 011 different dates transferred to the dairy development department, and appointed as Dairy Development Officers. In the animal husbandry department their inter se seniority was that respondent 3 was the senior-most, after him came fourth respondent and after him the petitioner and lastly Philipose Thomas. Philipose Thomas was transferred to the dairy development department on 1-6-1961, while the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 were transferred on 7-1-1963, 8-5-1963 and 20-12-1963 respectively. One Appukuttan Nair was appointed as the Extension Assistant in the dairy development department by direct recruitment; and subsequently on 5-3-1963 he was promoted as Dairy Development Officer. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director on 22-6-1963. Thereafter when two vacancies arose, the third respondent was appointed on 6-7-1965 and the fourth respondent on 26-7-1965 as Assistant Directors. Appukuttan Nair thereupon filed O. P. 2343 of 1965 claiming seniority over respondents 3 and 4 on the basis that he was appointed in the cadre of Dairy Development Officers earlier than the appointment of respondents 3 and 4. That claim was upheld by this court by its judgment, Ex. P1 dated 8-11-1966. Accordingly Appukuttan Nair has been promoted and he has been assigned a rank above respondents 3 and 4 and below that of the petitioner. Philipose Thomas, who had been appointed as Dairy Development Officer earlier than any of above persons, was promoted as Assistant Director even before the promotion of the petitioner, and he is now a Joint Director. On 17-2-1969 the State Government passed an order Ex. P 2 fixing the inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 by which the Government directed that the third respondent will be the senior most, then the fourth respondent and lastly the petitioner. The result is that the petitioner becomes not only junior to respondents 3 and 4, but even to Appukuttan Nair. This writ petition has been filed to quash Ex. P 2 on the ground that the said order is discriminatory and is also violative of rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. 2. Rule 27(a) alone is relevant for the purpose of this case, and it reads as follows:- “27. This writ petition has been filed to quash Ex. P 2 on the ground that the said order is discriminatory and is also violative of rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. 2. Rule 27(a) alone is relevant for the purpose of this case, and it reads as follows:- “27. Seniority, (a) Seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade, shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under the Rules, his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation”. 3. According to the above provision, it is clear that the seniority between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 has to be determined by the date of commencement of their respective services in the cadre of Dairy Development Officers. The fixing of seniority as per Ex. P. 2 would, therefore, be violative of the above rule. 4. The only reason stated in Ex. P. 2 for fixing the seniority in the manner it has been done is that the initial appointment of the above 3 persons was provisional, and that in so far as they were transferred to the dairy development department, without calling for applications or ascertaining the willingness of all eligible officers, the services of all those who have been so transferred to the new department have to be fixed with reference to their seniority in the parent department. 5. I am unable to follow the above reasoning. Perhaps by provisional appointment the Government may be meaning that the appointments were temporary within the meaning of rule 9(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. There is no scope for any provisional appointment under the above rules. Temporary appointments can be made under rule 9 only for the purposes and under the circumstances mentioned therein. Appointments in regular vacancies occurring in a cadre of service by transfer from another temporary appointments, (sic) These appointments were intended to be permanent; and on the basis of such appointments, further promotions have also been given to them in the regular course. Appointments in regular vacancies occurring in a cadre of service by transfer from another temporary appointments, (sic) These appointments were intended to be permanent; and on the basis of such appointments, further promotions have also been given to them in the regular course. To call such appointments as provisional is a clear violation of rule 9(a) of the Rules. It may be that the Government should have made appointments in the dairy development department by transfer from the animal husbandry department after calling for applications and ascertaining willingness of all eligible officers working in the animal husbandry department. The fact that the Government made these appointments about eight years ago without adopting such a procedure is not a ground for upsetting the seniority which the persons so appointed are entitled to have under rule 27 of the Rules. 6. By Ex. P-2, the appointment of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 were all regularised with effect from 20-12-1963. This is the date on which the third respondent (sic) cadre of Dairy Development Officers in this department much earlier than the above date. This date has, therefore, no relevancy in fixing the date of regularisation of appointments of persons who joined the department earlier. Ex. P-3 is an order dated 6-9-1969 of the State Government, regularising the appointments of Philipose Thomas and two others in this department, who were transferred from the co-operative department. It shows that their appointments were regularised with effect from the dates on which they took charge of their respective posts. It is difficult to understand why the same rule would not apply to the petitioner. The learned advocate appearing for the third respondent contends that Ex. P-3 is a wrong order, and that it cannot affect the right of the petitioner. I am unable to agree with the above contention. As I see Ex. P-3 is in accordance with rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. 7. The learned advocate appearing for the third respondent contends that Ex. P-3 is a wrong order, and that it cannot affect the right of the petitioner. I am unable to agree with the above contention. As I see Ex. P-3 is in accordance with rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. 7. In a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Raghavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer, [ (1971) 1 LLJ 196 ]; 1971 KLJ 281 , this Court held that when the earlier appointment of a person to a higher cadre is unconditional, it entitles him to seniority over persons who were later appointed in that cadre though they were seniors in the lower cadre and were entitled to earlier promotion; and the preferential appointment of the junior would be an impediment for regaining their seniority in the higher cadre. That decision also held that, if such promotions have been allowed to stand without being questioned for sufficiently long time, the High Court would not interfere with them under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In this case, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director on the basis of an earlier appointment in the dairy development Department as the dairy development officer as early as 22-6-1963. Applying the same principle as involved in the above decision, the Government cannot also be allowed to upset that state of things after a lapse of six years as has been done in this case as per Ex. P-2. 8. In the result I quash Ext. P2 and direct the State Government to fix the inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 in accordance with rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and in the light of the observations herein contained. There will be no order as to costs.