JUDGMENT K. A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. In this Original Petition, challenging Exts. P-4, P-7 and P-11 to P-16, the petitioners claim seniority over respondents 4 and 5 and similarly placed persons including additional respondent 6, in the cadre of Police Constable in the Local Police in Idukki District and claim earlier promotion as Head Constable over the said respondents, taking into account their seniority as Police Constables from the date of their advice as such for recruitment to Armed Police Battalion. In other words, the issue raised in this Original Petition is whether the petitioners can count the service put in by them in Armed Police Battalion or District Armed Reserve for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Police Constables in local police in Idukki district over the persons like the said respondents, who got earlier transfer to local police. 2. Petitioners were appointed on advice by the Public Service Commission, to Armed Police Battalion on 7th December 1983, 7th February 1984 and 7th February 1984 respectively. It is not in dispute. On completion of certain period of service in Armed Police Battalion, the Police Constables can, on option, come over to District Armed Reserve. In the case of the petitioners, it is Idukki district Armed Reserve. The petitioners came over to the district Armed Reserve in Idukki on 20th April 1989. This is also not in dispute. By that time certain persons like the 4th respondent were directly recruited to District Armed Reserve on 1st December 1987 and other dates. This was earlier than the date of transfer of the petitioners to District Armed Reserve, Idukki on 20th April 1989. How their inter se seniority shall be determined, shall be considered first. 3. That issue is now covered totally as per Ext. P-1 Judgment rendered based on the first proviso to R.3 of Special Rules issued in S.R.O. 82/80 as per G. O. (Ms.) 16/80/Home, dated 17th January 1980. How their inter se seniority shall be determined, shall be considered first. 3. That issue is now covered totally as per Ext. P-1 Judgment rendered based on the first proviso to R.3 of Special Rules issued in S.R.O. 82/80 as per G. O. (Ms.) 16/80/Home, dated 17th January 1980. The proviso reads as under: "provided that notwithstanding anything contained in R.27 of the General Rules of the K. S. and S.S.R., 1958, the seniority of a Police Constable appointed to a District Armed Reserve from an Armed Police Battalian shall be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment or date of first effective advice of the Public Service Commission for his appointment, as the case may be, to the post of Police Constable in the Armed Police Battalion." This is an exception to the General R.27 in K.S. and S. S. Rules regarding seniority. Though Armed Police Battalion and District Armed Reserve are separate units as mentioned in R.3 of the said Special Rules, by reason of application of the said proviso, the incumbents originally recruited in Armed Police Battalion when transferred to the different units of District Armed Reserve, will carry their seniority to the latter unit. That is concluded by Ext. P-1 Judgment. In such situation, the petitioners who were recruited in Armed Police Battalion on 7th December 1933, 7th February 1984 and 7th February 1984, though came over to District Armed Reserve only on 20th April 1989, shall be ranked as seniors to the 4th respondent, who was recruited directly to Armed Reserve on 1st December 1987 or any other date and remaining in the District Armed Reserve was on the date of transfer of the petitioners to that unit. The 4th respondent was remaining as such when the petitioners were so transferred to District Armed Reserve. In such circumstance in District Armed Reserve, persons like the 4th respondent who were directly recruited to the Armed Reserve later than the date of recruitment of the petitioners in Armed Police Battalion and remaining in District Armed Reserve as on 20th April 1,984, will always be juniors to the petitioners. It is declared so. 4. One can come to the local police from District Armed Reserve only based on seniority and subject to passing catechism test. Regarding passing of catechism test, there is no dispute as regards the persons like the 4th respondent. It is declared so. 4. One can come to the local police from District Armed Reserve only based on seniority and subject to passing catechism test. Regarding passing of catechism test, there is no dispute as regards the persons like the 4th respondent. In such circumstance persons like the 4th respondent can come to local police only later than the petitioner's. So in the local police also, persons like the 4th respondent who were recruited to District Armed Reserve later than 7th February 1984 and 7th February 1984 and continuing in District Armed Reserve until 20th April 1989, will be juniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Police Constables. It is also declared so, So, further promotion as Head Constables shall also be based on such seniority. Inclusion in the list of eligibles shall be based on such seniority, subject to fitness. Therefore the petitioners are entitled to get seniority over persons like the 4th respondent, more specifically described as above, in the cadre of Police Constables in the local police. 5. The remaining issue is the inter se seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis persons like respondents 5 and 6. Respondents 5 and 6 were directly recruited to District Armed Reserve in Ernakulam in the year 1,985. The former on 23rd November 1985 and the later on 7th March 1985. Both of them applied to inter district transfer to Idukki District Armed Reserve. It was allowed. They joined there respectively on 5th October 1988 and 23rd June 1988. Their seniority in the District Armed Reserve, Idukki therefore, counts from that date. There is no order specifying any minimum service in that unit to get transferred as Police Constables in the local police. Accordingly depending upon the seniority and fitness, they were transferred to local police on 11th October 1988 and 16th August 1988 respectively. 6. It is contended by the petitioners that persons like the 5th respondent should not have been transferred from Ernakulam to Idukki on inter district basis, before completing 5 years service in their unit of appointment, viz., Ernakulam. The petitioner relies on Exts. P-17 to P-21 to substantiate this contention. Ext. P-18 provides as follows: "Government have examined the case in detail and they are pleased to order that transfers within the districts comprised in the erstwhile Malabar and Travancore-Cochin areas will be allowed within five years subject to the other conditions specified. The petitioner relies on Exts. P-17 to P-21 to substantiate this contention. Ext. P-18 provides as follows: "Government have examined the case in detail and they are pleased to order that transfers within the districts comprised in the erstwhile Malabar and Travancore-Cochin areas will be allowed within five years subject to the other conditions specified. However, 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 five year rule shall be placed before the Council of Ministers for approval." The five years rule is applicable only for transfer from a District in erstwhile Malabar area to another in Travancore-Cochin area or vice versa. It is not applicable for transfer from one district to another in the same area. It is more clear from Ext. P-20 which reads as under: "At the end of Para (5) (a) the following sentence will be added. However P.S.Cs. recruited by the different District Recruitment Boards of the Kerala P.S.C. could be considered for transfer between Districts within the erstwhile Malabar area or Travancore Cochin area as the case may be within a period of 5 years service, the other conditions like loss of seniority etc. being the same for all inter unit transfers." Even otherwise it is discernible from Ext. P-21 that: In course of time this condition was relaxed and transfers from one district to another within the erstwhile Malabar and Travancore-Cochin areas were permitted. The five year ban now exists only in respect of transfers from a district in Malabar to Travancore-Cochin area and vice versa. Thus the rule five year existed at the relevant time only for transfer from a district in Malabar to another in Travancore-Cochin or vice versa. That was made applicable to transfer within the said two areas only by Ext. P-21. 7. The persons like 5th respondent came from Idukki to Ernakulam, two districts in the Travancore-Cochin area, in July, 1988, before issuance of Ext. P-21, dated 2nd December 1991. So their transfer cannot be said to be illegal. 8. Taking into account the length of service of the said persons vis-a-vis the petitioners, petitioners have lengthier service than them based on their original date of advice in Armed Battalion as compared to the date of original advice of respondents 5 and 6 in District Armed Reserve in Ernakulam. So their transfer cannot be said to be illegal. 8. Taking into account the length of service of the said persons vis-a-vis the petitioners, petitioners have lengthier service than them based on their original date of advice in Armed Battalion as compared to the date of original advice of respondents 5 and 6 in District Armed Reserve in Ernakulam. But by the time the petitioners came over to District Armed Reserve, Idukki on 20th April 1989, respondents 5 and 6 and similar persons had already been transferred to local police. Therefore there arises no question of reckoning any inter se seniority between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 5 and 6 and similar persons on the other in the category of Constables in District Armed Reserve, as they did not become the members of the cadre of Police Constable in Idukki District Armed Reserve simultaneously. By the time the petitioners could get transferred as constables in the District Armed Reserve, the respondents 5 and 6 had become Police Constables in the local police. Therefore whenever the petitioners are transferred to local police, they can take their rank only below respondents 5 and 6 and similar persons in the cadre of Police Constables in the local police. They cannot, on application of the proviso to R.3 of the Special Rules as extracted above, count their service from the original date of advice as Police Constables in Armed Police Battalion, because that proviso is applicable only for the purpose of counting seniority in District Armed Reserve. There is no similar special provision regulating seniority of constables in local police to exclude the general provision in R.27 (a) of the General Rules in the K.S. and S.S. Rules. Naturally the petitioners can claim seniority in the cadre of police constables in the local police only from the date of their transfer to local police. This date is later than that of the respondents 5 and 6 and persons like them, who had been transferred from District Aimed Reserve, Idukki, to local police earlier than 20th April 1989, when the petitioners came over to that unit. 9. Original Petition is therefore dismissed as regards respondents 5, 6 and similarly placed persons. 10. Applying the principle as mentioned above, as regards persons like the 4th respondent more specifically described above, Ext. 9. Original Petition is therefore dismissed as regards respondents 5, 6 and similarly placed persons. 10. Applying the principle as mentioned above, as regards persons like the 4th respondent more specifically described above, Ext. P-11 to P-16 shall be modified giving seniority to the petitioners over such persons. I need not say anything regarding Ext. P-4 because it had already been quashed in Ext. P-8 Judgment. Original Petition is thus partly allowed.