Judgment :- 1. The relevant facts pertaining to all these cases being the same and the relief claimed by the petitioners in all these cases being the same viz., for quashing Exts. P1 and P2 in O. P. No. 3363/82 and for consequential reliefs these cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience we shall advert to the ranks and exhibits as in O. P. No. 3363/82. 2. The petitioners in all these cases commenced their career as Lower Division Clerks under the respective Municipalities. In due course the petitioners were promoted to the next higher cadre of Upper Division Clerks, they having earned eligibility by passing the prescribed test. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, viz., B. Amminikutty Amma and R. Bhaskaran Nair though seniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks were not considered for promotion to the carde of Upper Division Clerks when the petitioners were promoted, for the reason that they had not earned eligibility by passing the prescribed test. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 passed the prescribed test after the petitioners came to be promoted to the cadre of Upper Division Clerks on 21-7-1971 and 1-4-1974 respectively. Petitioners 1 and 2 had earned further promotion to the cadre of Junior Superintendents. On the representation made by respondents 3 and 4 the State Government made as order as per Ext. P2 dated 18-8-1980 under R.39 of the K. S. & S. S. R. to the effect that they shall be entitled to the benefit of restoration of seniority. The principle incorporated in G. O. No. R. Dis. 8207/50/CS dated the 7th of May, 1951 has subsequently been clarified. The said G.O entitles the seniors to get restoration of their seniority over their juniors who had been promoted earlier, they having passed the requisite qualifying test earlier than the seniors, on the seniors subsequently passing the test and getting promoted, provided in the meanwhile the juniors were not confirmed in the promoted cadre or were not further promoted to a higher cadre. Having regard to the order made by the State Government as per Ext. P2, an order was made as per Ext. PI dated the 7th of April, 1982 reverting petitioners 1 and 2 from the cadre of Junior Superintendents and promoting respondents 3 and 4. Having regard to the order made by the State Government as per Ext. P2, an order was made as per Ext. PI dated the 7th of April, 1982 reverting petitioners 1 and 2 from the cadre of Junior Superintendents and promoting respondents 3 and 4. This was obviously done on the strength of Ext. P2, giving them the benefit of restoration of seniority. If the benefit of restoration of seniority based on the Government Order dated the 7th of May, 1951 was not available for respondents 3 and 4, the promotion of petitioners 1 and 2 could not have been disturbed and respondents 3 and 4 could not have earned promotion over those who had earned promotion to the cadre of Upper Division Clerks earlier than them. It is in this background that the petitioners have challenged Exts. P 1 and P 2 and have prayed for consequential reliefs. 3. We are concerned in these cases with the employees governed by the provisions of the Kerala Municipal Corporation Act. 1961. S.90 of the said Act provides for constitution of a common municipal service. In exercise of the power conferred by the said provision, a common municipal service was constituted with effect from 1-11-1967 on which date the Kerala Municipal Common Service Rules, 1967 were brought into force. R.3 of the said Rules provides that on and with effect from the first of November, 1967 the employees of the municipal councils and Corporations holding the posts specified by the Government, by order in this behalf shall be constituted into a common service for the State. The said provision further empowers the preparation of a combined gradation list of all the employees that come under the common service. R.14 of the said rules provides for applying the provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules to the employees of the municipal common service and reads as follows: "14. Applicability of the Kerala State and Subordinate services rules in the case of employees. (1) The provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services R.1958 will apply to this service wherever express provision is not otherwise provided for in these rules. Applicability of the Kerala State and Subordinate services rules in the case of employees. (1) The provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services R.1958 will apply to this service wherever express provision is not otherwise provided for in these rules. (2) The principle of reservation of appointments under R.14 to 17 in Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 shall apply to all appointments by direct recruitment to the common service." Rule 27 of the K.S. and S.S.R. deals with seniority. The State Government has assumed that the rule regarding restoration contained in the first proviso to clause (b) of R.27 is not applicable to the employee who have come under the common municipal service. It is on that basis that the State Government has proceeded to confer certain benefits on respondents 3 and 4 in the matter of restoration of seniority by making an order under R.39 of the K.S. and S.S.R. as per Ext. P2. 4. It was contended by Sri. M. N. Sukumaran Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the State Government Ext. P2 is not sustainable for the reason that the said order adversely affects the rights of the other parties, particularly the rights of petitioners 1 and 2 who came to be reverted on the strength of Ext. P2, that having been passed without due notice to the persons likely to be affected by the said order. This Court has ruled in 1973 KLT.151 between T. C. Sreedharan Pillai & Others & State of Kerala & Others that it is obligatory to give a hearing to persons likely to be affected, particularly in all cases where the order proposed to be passed will have the direct consequence of affecting the settled seniority or rank of any of the other persons in the service or of upsetting promotions already given to them. It is not disputed that neither petitioners 1 and 2 nor other persons whose seniority was likely to be affected in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks were given an opportunity of showing cause in the matter. That being the position, the order Ext. P2 of the State Government made under R.30 of the K. S. and S. S. R. cannot be sustained. Besides, it appears to us that the Government has no power to pass an order of the type made under Ext. P2. That being the position, the order Ext. P2 of the State Government made under R.30 of the K. S. and S. S. R. cannot be sustained. Besides, it appears to us that the Government has no power to pass an order of the type made under Ext. P2. What the State Government can do is to exempt the parties from the rigour of the provisions on the ground that it causes undue hardship having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. What was really sought to be done was to enunciate a separate rale regarding determination of seniority than the one by which everyone else is governed. R.39 does not confer power on the State Government to make a rule regulating seniority of the specified employees when everyone else is governed by the appropriate statutory provision in that behalf. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the State Government has no power to pass an order of.the type made in Ext. P2 prescribing a different rule regulating seniority of the two persons. 5. It was however contended by Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon, learned counsel for contesting respondents 3 and 4, that even if Ext. P2 does not come to their and, then provision regarding restoration of seniority contained in R.27 is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. It was submitted that the proviso to clause (b) of R.27 makes it clear that the Government Order regarding restoration dated the 7th of May, 1951 as subsequently clarified is applicable to every person who was a member of the service on the date of coming into force of the rules. It was submitted that respondents 3 and 4 were in service on the date on which R.27 of the K.S. and S.S.R. became applicable to the members of the municipal common service and that therefore they are entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated the 7th of May, 1951 regarding restoration of seniority. 6. It is necessary to point out that the provisions of the K S. & S.S.R. are made applicable to the municipal common service by R.14 of the Municipal Common Service Rules which provides that the provisions of the K. S. & S. S. R.1958 will apply to that service wherever express provision is not otherwise provided for in the said rules. The Municipal Common Service Rules do not contain any provisions regulating seniority of the members of the municipal common service. Hence there cannot be any doubt that R.27 of the K.S and S.S.R, a provision which regulates seniority, has become part of the Municipal Common Service Rules by incorporation, having regard to the express provisions contained in R.14(1) of the said rules. R.14 does not provide that the provisions of the K.S. and S.S R.1958 shall be applicable to the members of the municipal common service as and when they stand amended from time to time. It therefor follows that it is only those provisions of the K.S. and S.S.R. that were actually in force and were in the statute book on the Ist of November, 1967 that became part of the Municipal Common Service Rules by the principle of incorporation. Hence it is only those provisions in the K.S. and S.S.R. that were there on the first of November, 1967 that became part of the Municipal Common Service Rules and not the amendments effected to the K.S. and S S.R. after 1-11-1967. Hence we have to eschew from consideration the amendments to R.27 effected after 1-SI-I967. The second proviso to clause (b) of R.27 was inserted by the Government Order dated 15-11-1972. Hence the same did not become part of the Municipal Common Service Rules. Though the amendment made in 1972 has been given retrospective effect from 17-12-1958, the same does not become part of the Municipal Common Service Rules, it having been introduced by way of amendment after 1-11-1967. The same is the position in respect of another amendment which was brought about by G.O. dated 1-11-1975 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 1-11-1975. The relevant statutory provision in clause (b) of R.27 which can be regarded as having become part of the Municipal Common Service Rules with effect from 1-11-1967 reads as follows: "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. The relevant statutory provision in clause (b) of R.27 which can be regarded as having become part of the Municipal Common Service Rules with effect from 1-11-1967 reads as follows: "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. 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." The question for examination is as to whether this proviso on which respondents 3 and 4 can place reliance helps them to establish that they are entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated the 7th of May 1951 regarding restoration of seniority. It was contended by Sri. Sukumaran Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner that the conditions for invoking this proviso are not at all available in these cases. It is clear from this provision that the Government introduced this provision with a view to protect the rights of the Government servants in Travancore-Cochin who had the benefit of the Government Order dated 7th of May, 1951 prior to coming into force of the K.S. & S.S.R. It is only persons who are entitled to the benefit of that Government order as subsequently clarified that continue to enjoy the rights conferred by the said G.O. even after coming into force of the K.S.& S.S.R. on the 17th of December, 1958. So far as the parties to these proceedings are concerned, they were all employees of different municipalities. As employees of the different municipalities they were not governed by the Government Order dated 7th of May 1951. It is neither pleaded nor proved before us that the employees of different municipalities were governed by the Government Order dated 7-5-1951, prior to 17-12-1958. The said Government Order itself does not say that it is applicable to the employees of the different municipalities. The Government Order dated 7-5-1951 therefore only regulated the conditions of service of Government employees and not the conditions of service of the municipal employees. Thus it becomes clear that none of the parties to these proceedings who were all employees of different municipalities before 17-12-1958 were governed by the Government Order dated 7-5-1951 as clarified subsequently. The Government Order dated 7-5-1951 therefore only regulated the conditions of service of Government employees and not the conditions of service of the municipal employees. Thus it becomes clear that none of the parties to these proceedings who were all employees of different municipalities before 17-12-1958 were governed by the Government Order dated 7-5-1951 as clarified subsequently. As it is only those who were governed by the Government Order that continued to enjoy the benefit of the said order even after the K.S. and S.S.R came into force on 17-12-1958, the parties to these proceedings viz., employees of different municipalities cannot claim the benefit of the said order, as it was not applicable to them before the K.S. and S.S.R. came into force. The principal condition for taking the benefit of the proviso to clause (b) of R.27 is that the person should have been governed by the Government Order dated 7-5-1951 before 17-12-1958. As it is nobody's case and as it is not so established that the employees of the different municipalities who are parties to these proceedings were governed by the G.O. dated 7th of May, 1951 before 17-12-1958, the proviso to clause (b) of R.27 does not become applicable to them. Hence none of the employees of different municipalities who were not governed by the said G.O. can claim the benefit of the said G.O. after becoming part of the municipal common service with effect from 1-11-1957. 7. There is another reason for coming to the same conclusion. The proviso to clause (b) of R.27 as also the Government Order dated the 7th of May, 1951 makes it clear that the principle of restoration governed only the Government servants in Travancore-Cochin. The said order was not at all applicable to the other part of the State which is known as the Malabar area. Hence it follows that the principle of restoration will have to be applied so far as the Travancore-Cochin area of Kerala State is concerned and another principle so far as the Malabar area of the State is concerned. When R.14 of the Municipal Common Service Rules provides for incorporating the provisions of the K.S. and S.S.R., it is obvious that it is only such of the provisions which has State-wide applicability alone that would become part of the Municipal Common Service Rules by the principle of incorporation. When R.14 of the Municipal Common Service Rules provides for incorporating the provisions of the K.S. and S.S.R., it is obvious that it is only such of the provisions which has State-wide applicability alone that would become part of the Municipal Common Service Rules by the principle of incorporation. Otherwise the staff of the municipalities in Malabar area would be governed by one set of rules and the staff of the Municipalities of the Travancore-Cochin area would be governed by another set of rules. Such could not have been the intendment when R.14 was promulgated for incorporating the provisions of the K.S and S.S.R. Besides, if it is assumed that the proviso to clause (b) of R.27 became part of the Municipal Common Service Rules by incorporation, the said proviso would become void as offending Art.14 of the Constitution, as one set of persons in the municipal common service would be governed by the Government Order dated 7th of May 1951 and another set of persons governed by the same rules by another principle. This would bring about a discriminatory treatment to employees of different municipalities brought in the municipal common service. Hence we have no hesitation in taking the view that even if it is assumed that the proviso to clause (b) of R.27 became part of the Municipal Common Service Rules, it would be void as offending Art.14 of the Constitution. When two interpretations are possible, one which renders the statutory provision void and the other which does not lead to such a situation, we should avoid that interpretation which renders the statutory provision void. Hence it follows that the order Ext. P1 dated 7-4-1982. reverting petitioners 1 and 2 and promoting respondents 3 and 4 cannot be sustained. For the reasons stated above all these original petitions are allowed and Exts. PI and P2 are quashed and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to determine the seniority of the petitioners and the contesting respondents in these cases without reference to Ext. P2 and without reference to the Government Order dated the 7th of May, 1951, referred to in the first proviso to clause (b) of S.27 of the K. S. and S. S. R. and to grant them all consequential benefits flowing from such determination, expeditiously. No costs. Allowed.