(1) THE appellant was given a provisional appointment as an Assistant Engineer on 12/10/81. She was recruited through the employment exchange. She continued with some breaks up to 5/10/83. On 5/10/83, she was given provisional employment under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. This was provisional appointment. The appellant was thereafter selected by the Public Service Commission and given regular appointment as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 21/3/1991. (2) THE appellant filed a petition before the Kerala High Court claiming that service for the period from 5/10/83 to 21/3/91 should count for the purpose of seniority. Her petition has been rejected by the single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the High Court. (3) SENIORITY of the appellant is governed by Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. Under Rule 27(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. Explanation to this Rule states that for the purposes of this sub-rule "appointment" will not include appointment under Rule 9 or appointment by promotion under Rule 31. Therefore, the appointment of the appellant under Rule 9 from 5/10/83 to 21/3/91 cannot count for the purposes of seniority under Rule 27. (4) THE appellant has, however, contended that the benefit of provisional service for seniority has been granted to some Assistant Engineers. She has, therefore, been discriminated against. She has drawn our attention to a Circular dated 7/1/91. This Circular, in turn, refers to the implementation of the judgment of the High Court. The persons who have been given the benefit of provisional service have been given such benefit on the basis of certain judgments of the High Court in writ petitions filed by these persons. We do not know, nor are we informed about the circumstance in which such benefit was given by the High Court to these three persons. Nor is there anything before us which would indicate that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the persons concerned therein. We are, therefore, not in a position to hold that any discrimination has been practiced against the appellant. Nor is there anything before us which would indicate that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the persons concerned therein. We are, therefore, not in a position to hold that any discrimination has been practiced against the appellant. In these circumstances, the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the provisional service from 5/10/83 to 21/3/91 cannot count for the purpose of seniority. (5) THE appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Direct Recruit, Class II Engineering Officers Asscn. v. State of maharashtra reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 : ( AIR 1990 SC 1607 : 1990 Lab IC 1304). In view of Rule 27, however, the benefit of earlier service cannot be given to the appellant. (6) THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.