Judgment :- Sreedharan, ag. C.J. Respondent in OP. 1138/1986 is the appellant. Decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, which is reported in Sreedharan v. Director of Industries 1990 (1) KLT 76, is under challenge. 2. 'The short facts necessary for the disposal, of the appeal are as follows: Public Service Commission prepared a ranked list of successful candidates for appointment as Lower Division Clerks in various departments of Cannanore Revenue District. Writ Petitioner was ranked in that list. On the basis of the rank in the list, petitioner was advised for appointment in the Revenue Department. District Collector Cannanore required the petitioner to submit his proforma for verification of character and antecedents. While others were appointed before verification, petitioner was not given appointment. Since there was no vacancy in Cannanore Revenue Establishment, Public Service Commission advised the petitioner for appointment in one of the Headquarters vacancies in the Port Department. Pursuant to the order of appointment issued by the Director of Ports, Thiruvananthapuram, petitioner joined duty on 1.8.1977. While working as Lower Division Clerk in the Directorate of Ports, he successfully completed the period of probation. Probation was declared by order dated 10.8.1980. Petitioner requested that he may be posted in Cannanore District, which unit he had indicated while applying for appointment. Government by order dated 17.7.1981 agreed to the interdepartmental transfer of the petitioner to the district of his choice and Director of Industries appointed the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk in the Coir Project Office by his order dated 22.7.1981. He joined duty in that post on 3.8.1981. He claimed seniority in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk in the Industries Department on the basis of the first effective advice of the Commission dated 30.3,1977. Learned single judge declared that the petitioner is entitled to rank as Lower Division Clerk in the Industries Department with effect from 30.3.1977 and was an approved probationer with effect from-7.8.1980. 3. Government by Exhibit P1- G.O. (MS) 442/80/GAD dated 26.9.1980 - ordered that transfers within the district comprised in the erstwhile Malabar and Travancore-Cochin areas will be allowed within 5 years, subject to other conditions. 3. Government by Exhibit P1- G.O. (MS) 442/80/GAD dated 26.9.1980 - ordered that transfers within the district comprised in the erstwhile Malabar and Travancore-Cochin areas will be allowed within 5 years, subject to other conditions. However, it was stated that cases of inter-district transfers from a district in a unit to a district in another unit, i.e. Malabar area and Travancore-Cochin area, in relaxation of the 5 year rule shall be placed before the Council of Ministers for approval, Government also accepted the advice of the Public Service Commission that conditions of 5 years service laid down in G.O. (MS) 154/71/PD dated 27.5.1971 for inter-district transfers will not be applicable to the candidates who were advised for appointment in the Headquarters vacancies, so that a candidate could get transfer to the District of his choice without insisting on the period of five years. This provision in the said G.O. was made applicable to inter-departmental transfers of district-wise recruits by Exhibit P2, G.O. MS. No. 180/81/GAD dated 3.6.1961. The provisions contained in these Government Orders have been incorporated as second proviso to Rule 27 of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. That amendment is to the following effect: "Provided also that the seniority of a person advised by the District office of the Public Service Commission for appointment in the vacancy in the Headquarters, without obtaining his willingness and transferred alter such appointment to the district of his choice without assisting on the time limit of five years, shall be determined with reference to the date of his original advice by the District office of the Public Service Commission." The effect of this proviso is that when a candidate who is ranked for appointment in a particular district is advised for appointment in a vacancy in the Headquarters, without obtaining his consent and that person is subsequently posted in the district of his choice, his seniority will have to be decided with reference to the date of the first effective advice. In the instant case, petitioner was selected for appointment in Cannanore district. There were no vacancies in Cannanore district for absorbing him. Thereupon he was advised to the vacancy in the Headquarters of the Port Department at Trivandrum. Pursuant to that advice, he joined the Headquarters. Thereafter he applied for transfer to Cannanore. He was given the transfer and he got a posting in the Industries Department in Cannanore. There were no vacancies in Cannanore district for absorbing him. Thereupon he was advised to the vacancy in the Headquarters of the Port Department at Trivandrum. Pursuant to that advice, he joined the Headquarters. Thereafter he applied for transfer to Cannanore. He was given the transfer and he got a posting in the Industries Department in Cannanore. As per the proviso quoted above, his rank in the Industries Department must be on the basis of the first effective advice. 4. Learned Government Pleader put forth an argument that the above proviso can apply to inter-district transfers and not inter-departmental transfers. In the instant case, according to the learned Government Pleader, if petitioner was transferred to the Port Department in C annanore, the proviso would have had its effect. Since he was not posted in the above department but he was posted in the Industries Department by interdepartmental transfer, his seniority must be governed by G.O. MS. 4/61/PD. This argument of learned counsel, we are afraid, cannot hold good. Proviso does not differentiate between inter-departmental transfers as against inter-district transfers. According to us, both will fall within the mischief of the proviso quoted above. In view of what has been stated above, we find no ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed. No costs.