JUDGMENT T.V. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a part time sweeper in the State Seed Farm, Kongad, Palghat District as per proceedings of the Joint Director of Agriculture (PAC) Palghat dated 2-3-1985 on a temporary basis. The petitioner's service as part time sweeper was later regularised. While continuing as such, as per Ext. P2 order dated 18-10-1985 the petitioner was appointed as Fitter in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Agrl.) Malampuzha on a provisional basis. On the basis of the above appointment order, he jointed duty as Fitter in the office of the first respondent on 24-10-1985. The qualifications prescribed for appointment as Fitter are those contained in Ext. P1 Circular dated 15-2-1985. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner satisfies all the qualifications prescribed as per Ext. P1 Circular. As per Ext. P3 order dated 31-12-1986, probation of the petitioner was declared and his animal increment was sanctioned with effect from 25-10-1986. He was also admitted to General Provident Fund with effect from July, 1986 and the G. P. P. Account Number allotted to him is AGRI. 15113. While so, as per Ext. P4 order date 2-11-1988, the second respondent reverted the petitioner and posted him as part time contingent employee. The reason stated in Ext. P4 for reverting the petitioner is that the appointment of part time contingent sweeper as Fitter is irregular. In support of the conclusion so reached, it is stated in Ext. P 4 that as per the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules part time contingent employees cannot be treated as parsons coming under any of the subordinate services and that only a person employed in any of she subordinate services can be appointed to the post of Fitter by transfer. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Ext. P4 order contending that as per the method of appointment indicated in Ext. P1, he was fully qualified to be appointed as Fitter by transfer as he was at the relevant time a member of the part time contingent service governed by the Special Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s.(i) of S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 (19 of 1968) - Notification No. S.R.O No. 152/75/PD. 2. P1, he was fully qualified to be appointed as Fitter by transfer as he was at the relevant time a member of the part time contingent service governed by the Special Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s.(i) of S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 (19 of 1968) - Notification No. S.R.O No. 152/75/PD. 2. On behalf of the third respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayers in the O.P. and reiterating the grounds mentioned in Ext. P4 in justification of the reversion ordered. Further, with reference to the contention that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing Ext. P4 order and no copy of Ext. P4 order was served on the petitioner, it was stated that there is no necessity of serving either a notice or a copy of the order on the petitioner as the order of reversion is one passed in rectification of a mistake committed at the time when the order of appointment was made. However, it was admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is even now continuing in service on the strength of the stay order passed by this Court in this O. P. 3. The method of appointment prescribed in Ext. P1 is a follows: "Method of appointment: 1. By promotion from any category in the Agricultural Subordinate Service OR Transfer from any other service." The appointment of the petitioner was not by promotion from any category in the Agricultural Subordinate Service, It wag really by transfer from the part time contingent service to which be belonged at that time, he was appointed as a Fitter. While reverting the petitioner, the view taken as revealed from Ext. P4 is that "transfer from any other service" can only mean transfer from any other subordinate service other than Agricultural Subordinate Service and that part time contingent service is not a subordinate service as per the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. It is on the basis the petitioner's appointment was found to be irregular, This is the only reason stated in the counter affidavit in justification of the reversion effected as per Ext. P4. In the light of the grounds stated in Ext. It is on the basis the petitioner's appointment was found to be irregular, This is the only reason stated in the counter affidavit in justification of the reversion effected as per Ext. P4. In the light of the grounds stated in Ext. P4 and the contention raised in the counter affidavit, the only question to be considered is whether the petitioner is an employee of a subordinate service governed by the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. 4. The view taken by the second respondent while reverting the petitioner is obviously incorrect. R.8 of Part II of the Kerala Civil Services (CC&A) Rules defines 'Subordinate Services' as consisting of the services included in Schedule II of that Rules. Entry 23 C of Schedule II of the Rules is "the Kerala Part time contingent service". Thus entry 23C would show that part time contingent service of which the petitioner was an employee at the relevant time is a subordinate service as defined in the Kerala Civil Services (CC&A) Rules. The Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules defines "Service" as a group of persons clarified by the State Government as a State or a Subordinate Service as the case may be. There is no specification in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules of the services classified by the Government as State services and Subordinate services like the one contained in Schedules I and II of the Kerala Civil Services (CC&A) Rules. The reference to Schedules I and II of the Kerala Civil Services (CC&A) Rules in R.1 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules wherein the scope of the Rules contained in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules is delineated would indicate that as far as the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules is also concerned, "State Service'' and "Subordinate Service" will have the same meaning they have as per the definitions in the Kerala Civil Service (CC&A) Rules. Accordingly, it has to be held that the Rules In Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules is applicable to all the State and Subordinate Services as defined in the Kerala Civil Services (CC & A) Rules including the Kerala Part time contingent service included as item 23C in Schedule II of the Kerala Civil Service (CC&A) Rules. In this view, it has to be further held that the petitioner was an employee of a Subordinate Service for the purpose of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules also and as such his appointment as Fitter by transfer as provided in Ext. P1 Circular cannot be held as irregular or illegal for the reasons mentioned in Ext. P4. Accordingly, Ext. P4 order reverting the petitioner is set aside. The Original Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.