Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. Admittedly by the petitioners, as submitted before me, they were appointed during 1970s, earliest among them was appointed in the year 1972. The appointment was in the category of Lower Division Clerks. The seniority shall be governed in terms of rule 27 (c) of the K.S. & S.S. Rules with reference to their date of effective advice. According to them, they were promoted as Upper Division Clerks as per Ext. P7 assigning them different dates. Admittedly, they had acquired the necessary obligatory test qualification for appointment to the post of U.D. Clerks during the period 1986-89, it is so submitted before me. It is only after such acquisition of qualification, they were promoted as per Ext. P2. It is further submitted before me that their erstwhile juniors in the category of L.D. Clerks had been promoted earlier than them as U.D. Clerks, because of earlier acquisition of test qualification, 'depending on occurrence of vacancies'. 2. Petitioners have now approached this court challenging Ext. P6 seniority list and seeking for a direction that they are entitled to restore their seniority in the U.D.C. Cadre and above on the basis of their date of entry in the post of Lower Division Clerks as evidenced by Ext. P2 and for all consequential service benefits. The petitioners therefore seek a direction to restore this seniority in the post of U.D. Clerks on the basis of their entry in the cadre of lower division clerks as evidenced by Ext. P2. In other words, the petitioners seek restoration of their original seniority in the post of Lower Division Clerks, even in the category of Upper Division Clerks over their erstwhile juniors in the category of Lower Division Clerks who had been promoted earlier than the petitioners to U.D. Cadre based on their qualifications and depending on occurrence of vacancies. The seniority settled as per Ext. P6 list shall be revised. According to me those prayers cannot be granted for different reasons mentioned below. 3. First of all Ext. P6 is a seniority list. That seniority list was issued by the Director of Public Instructions as early on 14-6-1996. The petitioners have not chosen to challenge that list for the last more than five years. Now at this distance of time, the petitioners cannot seek to challenge the seniority list issued more than five years ago. 4. Petitioners' contention that Ext. That seniority list was issued by the Director of Public Instructions as early on 14-6-1996. The petitioners have not chosen to challenge that list for the last more than five years. Now at this distance of time, the petitioners cannot seek to challenge the seniority list issued more than five years ago. 4. Petitioners' contention that Ext. P6 list had been issued later than Ext. P7 promotion order does not merit consideration because it has been specifically ordered in Ext. P7 that the promotions effected therein "were purely provisional under rule 31(a) of the General Rules subject to review, if found necessary". That means even at the time of promoting the petitioners, they were informed that promotion does not give them any right to hold the post with reference to the date on which they were so promoted as it was purely temporary and it was liable to be reviewed; obviously because of the pendency of the review of the seniority list which has resulted in finalisation as per Ext. P6 dated 14-6-1996. 5. 'Restoration of seniority' as understood is in terms of the Government Proceedings R. Dis No. 8207/50/CS dated 7th May, 1951 as referred to in the first proviso to rule 27(a) and (b) of the General Rules in the K.S. & S.S. Rules. There is no other provision regarding restoration of seniority of those who had been superseded by erstwhile juniors because of lack of qualification of seniors. Nothing is brought to my notice. The aforesaid Government Order was issued by the erstwhile Travancore Cochin Government enabling the L.D. Clerks who got promotions as U.D. Clerks later than their erstwhile junior because of the late acquisition of obligatory test qualification, to regain seniority over their erstwhile juniors provided the said erstwhile juniors have not been confirmed in the U.D. Cadre. On formation of the State of Kerala, integrating Travancore Cochin State with the erstwhile Malabar District of Madras State, new service rules were issued as now contained in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, to be effective from 17-12-1958. The benefits available to Travancore Cochin employees who were then termed subsequent to the integration, as 'allotted officers' had to be protected. The benefits available to Travancore Cochin employees who were then termed subsequent to the integration, as 'allotted officers' had to be protected. So the first proviso was added to rule 27(b) to the effect that the said G.O. of the Travancore cochin Government subsequently clarified is not deemed to be superseded and that it will still cover "any person" who was a member of any service on the date of coming into force of these rules. Therefore, the benefit of the restoration is available only to those who were in service when the K.S & S.S. Rules were brought into force on 17-12-1958. As mentioned at the outset, it is submitted before me by the petitioners that they commenced services only during 1970s. Naturally they were not in service when these rules came into force and the restoration in terms of the Government Order of the Travancore-Cochin Government as saved in the first proviso will not be applicable to the petitioners. 6. As already mentioned above the K.S. & S.S. Rules came into force on 17-12-1958. Kerala State was formed on 1/11/1956. In between these two dates, there were several appointments in the category of L.D. Clerks. A question arose whether those appointed after the formation of the Kerala State and before the commencement of the K.S. & S.S. Rules would be entitled to the benefit of Travancore Cochin Government order. It was in the above background the second proviso to rule 27(a) and (b) was inserted with effect from 17-12-1958 to the effect that the benefit of the Government order of the Travancore Cochin Government shall 'also be applicable to the persons appointed in the State of Kerala before the coming into force of these Rules'. Still there were doubts whether the order dated 7.5.1951 of the Travancore Cochin Government did apply inter se over those appointed in the Kerala State after the commencement of the K.S. & S.S. Rules. It was clarified by incorporating the third proviso to be effective from 17-12-1958 that the said Government Order of the Travancore-Cochin Government providing for the restoration of seniority as subsequently clarified will be applicable "over those who have been appointed in the State of Kerala on or after 17th December, 1958". 7. It was clarified by incorporating the third proviso to be effective from 17-12-1958 that the said Government Order of the Travancore-Cochin Government providing for the restoration of seniority as subsequently clarified will be applicable "over those who have been appointed in the State of Kerala on or after 17th December, 1958". 7. So the restoration benefit in terms of the said Government Order of the Travancore-Cochin Government will be applicable only to those who have been appointed until 17-12-1958 and they can claim this benefit against those appointed on or after 17-12-1958. Therefore the benefit is not available to the petitioners who were admittedly appointed during 1970s, where as by the reason of the third proviso the benefit can be claimed by those who have been appointed earlier, that is, before 17-12-1958, over the persons like the petitioners. That is the effect of the third proviso. In other words, the third proviso does not confer any benefit to the persons like the petitioners to get restoration. Therefore in this original petition, the petitioners admittedly appointed as L.D. Clerks during 1970s cannot claim restoration of seniority in terms of T.C. Govt. order dated 7-5-1951 over their erstwhile juniors who got promotion to U.D. Cadre earlier than them. Naturally, the O.P. fails and is dismissed.