Judgment :- 1. A question based on R.27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules arises for consideration in this writ petition. The question involved is whether the petitioners, who were advised for appointment in Government service by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 16-12-1958, but who joined later, ie. after 17-12-1958, on receipt of the orders of appointment, could claim the benefit of restoration of seniority envisaged in the proceedings of the Travancore-Cochin Government R. Dis. 8207/50/CS dated 7th May, 1951. 2. The petitioners admittedly were advised for appointment by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 16-12-1958. The Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules came into force on 17-12-1958. The petitioners joined service pursuant to the advice aforesaid admittedly only after 17-12-1958. They joined service as Higher Grade Clerks (now designated as Assistant Grade II) in the Secretariat service. Subsequently and because of the want of test qualification on the part of the petitioners, their juniors got promoted to the category of Assistants Grade I. Petitioners acquired test qualifications later and sought seniority in the category of Assistants Grade I, on the strength of the Travancore-Cochin Government order aforesaid. Government passed the order Ext. P1 on 13-5-1968 overruling the petitioner's contention and holding that the rule regarding restoration of rank was applicable only to persons whose actual date of appointment in the Secretariat was prior to 17-12-1958 and that advice by the Public Service Commission before that date will not alter the position. The petitioners made further representations, which again were not successful and ultimately they have come forward with this writ petition. 3. The only contention urged by Sri M. Rajasekharan Nair, their counsel before us was that the benefits of the Travancore-Cochin Government order dated 7th May, 1951 will be available even for those who had been advised by the Public Service Commission before the date of commencement of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. He put it on two grounds. One was on the analogy which he drew from the Government Order dated 16th August 1963, marked Ext. P2 by which Government conferred the benefit of the 1:1 ratio between graduates and non-graduates for the purpose of promotion in the ministerial service with effect from 1-11-1957 even in regard to those who had been advised for appointment by the Public Service Commission before that date. P2 by which Government conferred the benefit of the 1:1 ratio between graduates and non-graduates for the purpose of promotion in the ministerial service with effect from 1-11-1957 even in regard to those who had been advised for appointment by the Public Service Commission before that date. Counsel would submit that the same position obtains in this case also and that if the benefit of the 1:1 ratio could be made available to those advised prior to 1-11-1957, but joined later, by parity of reasoning, the petitioner must also be enabled to get the benefit of restoration of rank. We do not, however, find any substance in this contention. Government had passed Ext. P2 order expressly conferring the benefit of the graduate non-graduate ratio 1:1 even on persons advised by the Public Service Commission before 1-11-1957. There is no such order applying the Travancore-Cochin Government Order dated 7th May 1951, to those advised prior to 17-12-1958, but who joined service after that date. The benefit of the said order which has been made applicable to service in Kerala by the three provisos to R.27 (b) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules is available only to a person who was a member of any service on the date of coming into force of these rules. Government has not notified that despite this being the position, the rule will nevertheless apply even to those who had been advised prior to 17-12-1958, as they did by passing Ext. P2. 4. The other contention raised is based on R.27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. Counsel states that the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in the service, on the advice of the Public Service Commission is fixed with reference to his rank in the advice list. According to counsel the delay in the petitioners' appointment or their taking charge is for reasons beyond the control of the candidates and therefore the appointment must be related back to the date of the advice. He states that a candidate advised on 16-12-1958 if he could join duty on that day itself, could have obtained the benefit of the Travancore-Cochin Government order, whereas another candidate advised by the same list would lose the benefits thereof merely because he could join duty only after 17-12-1958. He states that a candidate advised on 16-12-1958 if he could join duty on that day itself, could have obtained the benefit of the Travancore-Cochin Government order, whereas another candidate advised by the same list would lose the benefits thereof merely because he could join duty only after 17-12-1958. Counsel states that such circumstances beyond the control of the candidates should not be allowed to defeat the claims for rights under the provisos to R.27(b) read with the Travancore-Cochin Order. He says this anomaly can be eliminated by treating all such persons as having been appointed on the date of advice by the Public Service Commission. 5. The first proviso to R.27(b) makes the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Government Order R. Dis. No. 8207/50/CS dated May 7,1951 relating to restoration of seniority available to any person who was a member of any service on 17-12-1958. 'Member of a service' is defined in R.2(9) as a person appointed to the service and who had not retired or resigned, been removed or dismissed. A person is said to be appointed to a service when, in accordance with the rules, he discharges for the first time the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences probation (vide R.2 (1)). Actual entry into service and discharging the functions of the service are therefore, imperative conditions before any person could be said to be 'a member of the service'. The rules do not envisage any person being a notional member of a service or any person being treated fictionally as a member of the service. A person becomes a member of the service only after he receives the order of appointment, joins the service and commences discharging the duties of his post. Mere advice by the Public Service Commission does not therefore, make any person a member of the service R.27 (c) provides only the mode of determining seniority in cases where a number of persons are advised for appointment by the Public Service Commission and they join on different dates. It has nothing to do with the question of deciding as to when a person becomes a member of a service, which has got to be decided only with reference to R.1 (9) read with R.2 (1). The first proviso to R.27 (b) applies only to members of the service as defined in R.2 (9). It has nothing to do with the question of deciding as to when a person becomes a member of a service, which has got to be decided only with reference to R.1 (9) read with R.2 (1). The first proviso to R.27 (b) applies only to members of the service as defined in R.2 (9). The petitioners were only advised for appointment on 16-12-1958. They joined duty only after 17-12-1958 and then only became members of the service. The proviso to R.27(b) does not apply to them as they were not members of the service on 17-12-1958. This contention therefore fails. No other contentions are raised in the original petition. It is, therefore, dismissed, but without costs. Dismissed.