Judgment :- 1. The writ petition has been referred to a Full Bench in view of the doubt entertained as to the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench in Viswanathan Nair v. K.S.E. Board 1974 KLT. 75. The scope and the principle of the decision will be explained in the course of the discussion. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed a Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala State Electricity Board, in the Travancore-Cochin State on 11th September 1956. Respondents 2 and 3 were juniors to him. They became test qualified earlier than the petitioner. The 2nd respondent was therefore promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 14th June 1963 and the 3rd respondent on 7th April 1964. The petitioner became test-qualified only in 1969 and was promoted to the Upper Division cadre on 7th May 1970. At that time, Respondents 2 and 3 had not been confirmed and even now they have not been confirmed. On 13th November 1972, Respondents 2 and 3 were promoted as Junior Superintendents. The petitioner made Ext. P-2 representation for re-fixation of his rank, and promotion as Junior Superintendent, which was rejected by Ext. P-3 order dated 12th February 1976. The writ petition was to quash Ext. P-3 proceedings of the Chief Engineer. Kerala State Electricity Board, and for restoration of the petitioner's seniority over Respondents 2 and 3 and for the petitioner's promotion as Junior Superintendent. 2. The issue of seniority is to be decided by R.27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The relevant Rule so far as material is 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. 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. (b) The appointing authority shall, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix the order of preference among them; and seniority shall be determined in accordance with it: Provided that nothing contained in sub-rules (a) and (b) above shall be deemed to have superseded the orders of the Travancore-Cochin Government in R. Dis. No. 8207/50/ CS dated 7th May 1951 as subsequently clarified in respect of any person who was a member of any service on the date of coming into force of these rules: Provided further that the above said order of the Travancore-Cochin Government as subsequently clarified shall also be applicable to the persons appointed in the State of Kerala before the coming into force of these Rules. This amendment shall be deemed to have came into force with effect on and from 17th December 1958", The G. O., dated 7th May 1951 referred to in the first proviso after Clause (b) is what is generally referred to as the 'Restoration G. O'. The history and the scope of G. O. in a different context, and of the provisos to the rule fell to be examined recently by a Full Bench of this Court in O. P. Nos. 1447 of 1974, etc. That was concerned with a different aspect altogether, We may extract the relevant paragraphs of the restoration G. 0. dated 7th May 1951. 1. Wherever it is laid down that a person should pass a test or tests to qualify himself for a higher grade or post, preference should be given to those who have passed the test or tests in making promotion to that higher grade or post whether in an officiating or substantive capacity. 2. If a person with the required test qualification is not available for promotion to the grade or or post which requires the qualification, the seniormost person in the lower grade should be promoted. 3. 2. If a person with the required test qualification is not available for promotion to the grade or or post which requires the qualification, the seniormost person in the lower grade should be promoted. 3. In cases where a senior is passed over for want of the test qualification and a junior with such qualification is promoted, the junior will not be liable for reversion to give place to the senior as long as there is a vacancy in the higher grade or post against which the junior can continue without break. But if the junior reverts for want of vacancy in the higher grade or post, and if by the time another vacancy in the higher grade or post arise and the senior acquires the tests qualification the senior with the test qualification should be preferred for promotion. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in R.3, a person who was superseded by his junior for want of test qualification will not lose his claim for confirmation in the higher grade or post, if by the time the permanent vacancy arises, the senior person passes the test and gets himself promoted to the higher grade or post". The above G.O. was clarified by a Government Order dated 4th January 1954. Certain doubts had arisen in regard to the applicability of R.3 and 4 of the G.O. One of the doubts thus raised was: "(a) Suppose B who is junior to A was promoted to a scale of Rs. 45-75 by virtue of his test qualification, with effect from a particular date. By the time A qualifies himself in tests, another vacancy on Rs. 45-75 arises and he too is promoted to that grade. While both A and B are thus continuing on Rs. 45-75 one of the vacancies in the grade terminates. The question is who is to revert first, A or B. Examining the above and the other doubts, the Government clarified the position as follows: "2 (i) In the illustration given under (a) the junior hand viz., B should revert first (though he was promoted to the grade of Rs. 45-75 earlier) as on the date of termination of one of the vacancies both A and B have the necessary test qualification and both are acting on Rs. 45-75". There were further clarifications which we may skip and come to the Government memorandum No. SB4/11506/61/PD., dated 26th July 1961. 45-75 earlier) as on the date of termination of one of the vacancies both A and B have the necessary test qualification and both are acting on Rs. 45-75". There were further clarifications which we may skip and come to the Government memorandum No. SB4/11506/61/PD., dated 26th July 1961. Para.2 of the same stated thus: "2. According to the orders of the Travancore-Cochin Government contained in the G.O. cited a senior without test qualification superseded in the matter of promotion by his junior with test qualification can regain his seniority over such junior on his (senior's) acquisition of test qualification and promotion unless by that time the junior gets confirmed in the higher category. Suppose A and B are two Lower Division Clerks in a departmental unit in that order of seniority and B got promotion to the upper division first on account of that clarification, if and when 'A' passes the test and gets promoted to the upper division in a future vacancy he becomes automatically senior to B in upper division, unless B has already been confirmed in the upper division by that time. The benefit of this rule can be claimed by Travancore-Cochin Officers (including those appointed by the Kerala Government during the period from 1st November 1956 to 16th December 1958.)" It will be seen that the restoration G.O. dated 7th May 1951, while recognising that qualified juniors could supersede unqualified seniors nevertheless safeguarded the right of seniority of the seniors in clauses (3) and (4) of the said Government Order. The Government Order dated 26th July 1961 was only in further amplication or clarification of the principle of the above two paragraphs. The later Government Order stated that the unqualified senior is entitled to get restoration of seniority over the superseding junior till the latter gets confirmed in the post. In other words, the limit of time up to which seniority can be regained by the superseded senior is the confirmation of the superseding junior. That event has not happened in the instant, case, and therefore the superseded senior who became test-qualified must be entitled to restoration. 3. But it was contended that this is not the effect of the G.O. as explained and construed by a Division Bench of Govindan Nair, C. J. and Sadasivan, J. in Viswanathan Nair v. K.S.E. Board 1974 KLT. 75. To that decision we shall now turn. 3. But it was contended that this is not the effect of the G.O. as explained and construed by a Division Bench of Govindan Nair, C. J. and Sadasivan, J. in Viswanathan Nair v. K.S.E. Board 1974 KLT. 75. To that decision we shall now turn. After noticing the G.O. dated 7th May 1951 and the clarificatory order dated 26th July 1961 the Division Bench observed: "What is called confirmation order reflects a rule that was available in the Travancore and Cochin areas of the State to confirm a candidate apparently appointed in a regular manner, after his original appointment. At times the confirmation can take place years after the original appointment. Now speaking in terms of the rules applicable, if there has been an appointment to a regular post, which is not a temporary appointment under R.9 (a) (1) of the Kerala State Subordinate Services Rules, by the mere fact of the appointment, a person where probation is required would become a probationer and on satisfactorily completing his probation an approved probationer and so a full member. But if the appointment had been under R.9 (a) (1) in a temporary manner, a regularisation from any date prior to the order regularising the appointment can be passed. This is clearly provided in R.24 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The provision in R.24 for retrospective regularisation, we think is analogous to the power of passing confirmation orders with retrospective effect. So the orders of Government creating posts from 1st April 1964 permanently and confirming respondents 3 to 6 from those dates are perfectly valid. But these orders were passed, at least the confirmation order, only in 1970, long after the appellant acquired the test qualifications and got promotion. The question is whether we should give sanctity to the date of the confirmation order and repeal the claims of respondents 3 to 6 for seniority or whether we should take the realities of the existence of the permanent post on 1st April 1964 and the confirmation of respondents 3 to 6 as upper division clerks from that date. In Para.4 of the Government order dated 7th May 1951 there is no mention whatever of the confirmation of juniors. It speaks only of the confirmation of seniors, and that, from the date of occurrence of the vacancies if they had test qualifications at that time. In Para.4 of the Government order dated 7th May 1951 there is no mention whatever of the confirmation of juniors. It speaks only of the confirmation of seniors, and that, from the date of occurrence of the vacancies if they had test qualifications at that time. Perhaps a different note is struck in Para.2 of the order dated 26th July 1961; but we think the provision in Para.2 must be understood in the light of Para.4 (iii) and the two must be read with the order dated 7th May 1951 so as to harmonise the two orders. So read, the date of the confirmation order is unimportant and it is the date of occurrence of the vacancies and the insistence of test qualifications of the overlooked seniors at that time that is vital." We cannot accept the above statement of the Division Bench as correct. While the restoration G.O. dated 7th May 1951 recognised the principle that the superseded senior, on becoming test qualified, is entitled to preference for promotion on reversion, of the superseding junior for want of vacancy, or on the occurrence of a permanent vacancy and for restoration of his seniority on such promotion, the clarification issued in 1961 fixed the limit upto which such restoration can be had as the confirmation of the superseding junior. We are unable to agree with the Division Bench in the above case, that the regularisation of the appointment can be accepted as a substitute for confirmation, or as being equivalent to it. Nor can we agree that the date of confirmation is unimportant and that it is the date of occurrence of the vacancy in the higher grade that is material. We would accordingly overrule the above judgement of the Division Bench in 1974 KLT. 75. 4. In a later judgment in Sivaramakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala ILR.1975 (1) Kerala 4451975 KLT. 400, a Division Bench of Govindan Nair, C. J. and Eradi, J., had considered the effect of the restoration G.O. dated 7th May 1951 as clarified by the Government Order dated 26th July 1961. These were respectively Ext. P-4 and P-3 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench observed: "12. On a combined reading of Exts. 400, a Division Bench of Govindan Nair, C. J. and Eradi, J., had considered the effect of the restoration G.O. dated 7th May 1951 as clarified by the Government Order dated 26th July 1961. These were respectively Ext. P-4 and P-3 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench observed: "12. On a combined reading of Exts. P-3 and P-4 it is obvious that the scheme of the order dated 7th May 1951 as subsequently clarified by the Government is only to provide that a senior hand governed by the said order, who for want of test qualification was superseded by a junior with test qualification governed by the said order can regain his seniority over such junior on the former's acquisition of the test qualification and getting promoted to the higher category before the junior gets confirmed therein." The position was correctly stated in the above paragraph and we are in agreement with the Division Bench ruling to the extent of the above exposition. The ruling itself has been shaken and overruled by the pronouncement of a Full Bench of this Court in O.P. Nos. 1447 of 1974, 1308, 1324, 2623, etc. of 1975 and connected cases. But the view taken by that Division Bench on this aspect of the restoration G.O. with which we are here concerned, remains unimpaired, and we are in agreement of the same. We may notice that a Full Bench of this Court in Raghavan Nair v. Stale Insurance Officer 1971 KLT. 583 in Para.19 and 20, had pointed out the misconstruction sought to be placed on the restoration G O. by the Government spokesmen, and discountenanced any attempt to construe the G.O. in the light of the exposition offered by the Government or from other quarters. The Full Bench stated the position thus in Para.20: "20. By reason of the proviso to sub-rule (b) of R.27 in part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, and in the light of Government orders R. Dis-No. 8207/50/CS. The Full Bench stated the position thus in Para.20: "20. By reason of the proviso to sub-rule (b) of R.27 in part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, and in the light of Government orders R. Dis-No. 8207/50/CS. dated the 7th May 1951 as subsequently clarified, the petitioner who was senior to the respondents 3 and 4 in the lower division must be regarded as senior to them in the upper division as well since respondents 3 and 4 had not been confirmed therein before the petitioner's promotion thereto in fact, it would appear, that none of them has yet been confirmed therein." It is thus clear that the Full Bench also accepted confirmation of the superseding junior as marking the limit which will seal off the right of restoration of seniority to the superseded senior In the judgment in O. P. No. 4168 of 1972 dated 30th August 1972 one of us (Eradi, J.) had taken the view that the actual passing of the order of confirmation is crucial. The learned judge stated that what was relevant for the purpose of the G. Os, of 1951 and 1961 was whether the junior promoted earlier had already been confirmed on the date on which the senior acquired the test qualification and got promoted. That represents the correct principle to be applied. On the other hand, our learned brother, Chandrasekhara Menon. J. in the judgment in O.P. No. 3160 of 1976 held that an actual confirmation of the earlier promoted junior in the higher grade is not necessary and that the availability of permanent posts against which confirmation can be ordered would suffice. We cannot accept this view. In the result, we allow this writ petition and quash Ext P-3 proceedings of the Chief Engineer. We would direct the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to pass appropriate orders regarding the appellant's claim for restoration of rank and seniority in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made in this judgement, and in substitution of Ext. P-3 which we quash. There will be no order so as to costs. Allowed.