JUDGMENT George Vadakkel, J. 1. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed as Forest Guards on a provisional basis under rule 10 of the Madras State and Subordinate Service Rules that came into force on 1st January 1955. They were so appointed on 15th November 1958 and 20th November 1958. Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard under Kerala Forest Subordinate Service (Special) Rules, which came into force on 1st January 1963. His appointment was on 9th December 1964 but on a regular basis. 2. By Ext. P-4 dated 28th January 1972 the first respondent regularised the services of 93 provisional hands appointed as Forest Guards under rule 10 of the Madras State and Subordinate Service Rules with effect from the date of their continuous provisional appointment. The services of another batch of 21 provisional hands also appointed as Forest Guards under rule 10 of the Madras State and Subordinate Service Rules were regularised from the dates of their provisional appointments as per Ext. P-5 order of the first respondent dated 13th February 1973. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that these orders were passed behind his back and that no seniority list was prepared, maintained or circulated so that he was not aware of the same till he submitted Ext. P-7 representation which was rejected as per Ext. P-9 order dated 14th January 1974 of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner who had in the meanwhile been promoted as Forester was sought to be reverted as Forest Guard by Ext. P-8 order dated 29th May 1973 but that order appears to have been challenged by him in this court in O. P. 1824 of 1973 which was pending at the time this original petition was filed by him. It is his case that he is still continuing as Forester on the basis of interim orders of this court in the earlier original petition. 4. On the facts mentioned above the petitioner prays to quash Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders, to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to make promotions on the basis of Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders and to direct respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to treat the petitioner as senior to those persons whose provisional services have been ˜regularised as per Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders. Respondents Nos. P-4 and P-5 orders, to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to make promotions on the basis of Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders and to direct respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to treat the petitioner as senior to those persons whose provisional services have been ˜regularised as per Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have been allowed by this court to be impleaded in a representative capacity as per order on C.M.P. 11112 of 1974. 5. Rule 18 (a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (for short K.S.S.R.) confers jurisdiction on the appointing authority (here the first respondent) to determine, in the case of a person appointed temporarily under sub-rule (a) or (c) of rule 9 of those rules otherwise than in accordance with these rules and subsequently appointed in accordance with these rules, an earlier date than the date of the subsequent regular appointment as the date from which he shall commence his probation but without prejudice to seniority of others. It is the case of the petitioner herein that his seniority is affected by Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders and therefore there is violation of rule 18 because the rule can be applied only ˜without prejudice to the seniority is affected is not controverted, but the impugned orders are sought to be supported relying on rule 35 (b) of K.S.S.R. read with rule 23 of the Madras State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short Madras Rules). The admission is that under rule 23 of the Madras Rules, (this rule corresponds to rule 18 of K.S.S.R. the appointing authority can fix an earlier date even to the prejudice of seniority of others. This appears to be so, but we are afraid that in so far as rule 35 (b) of K.S.S.R. can be invoked only by a member of service, ˜that is to say, a person appointed to that service and is a probationer, an approved probationer, or a full member, and in so far as provisional hands would not come under any of the three classes of persons mentioned above, no reliance can be placed by respondents on rule 23 of the Madras Rules. If so, the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded in submitting that Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders cannot be sustained to the extent it affects his seniority. 6. If so, the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded in submitting that Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders cannot be sustained to the extent it affects his seniority. 6. It was feebly contended that we shall not interfere with Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders in so far as the same were passed in 1972 and 1973 respectively and the petitioner has approached this court only in June 1974. In view of the facts stated in paragraph 2 earlier in this judgment and nothing has been brought to our notice which would go to show that the petitioner had information about Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders, we do not think that there is any substance in the above contention. 7. However, we think that the ends of justice would be met by granting the petitioner relief No. III sought for by him, viz., by directing respondents 1 to 3 to treat the petitioner as senior to those persons whose services were, in the language of the said orders regularised by Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders. We refrain from granting reliefs Nos. 1 and 2 viz., quashing Exts. P-4 and P-5 and directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to make promotions pursuant to Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders and to cancel orders of promotion, if any, already made except as regards the petitioner, for none else, if any who is affected by the said orders has impugned the same. In other words, we confine the reliefs to the petitioner and petitioner alone. To the above extent the Original Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as senior to those mentioned in Exts. P-4 and P-5 whose services have been regularised and assign him rank on that basis. The petitioner will also be entitled to future promotions on that basis. No other directions are called for in this Original Petition. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.