Judgment :- Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. Can the final seniority list be changed without the grant of any opportunity to the concerned officers? This is the short question that arises in these four writ petitions. The dispute is primarily between the direct recruits and promotees. It related to the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) working in the Kerala State Electricity Board. Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P.No.25193 of 1999. These may be briefly noticed. 2. The petitioner herein was recruited as First Grade Overseer on February 15, 1972. On April 28, 1979 he was promoted as Assistant Engineer. On October 31, 1988 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. 3. The third respondent was similarly recruited as First Grade Overseer on August 6, 1973. He was appointed as Assistant Engineer on April 19, 1980. On February 7, 1990 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The 4th respondent was directly recruited as Assistant Engineer on January 28, 1980. It is alleged that this appointment was against a seat reserved for a Sportsman. She was further promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on February 7, 1990. 4. The inter se seniority list of the persons working as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) was notified by the Board vide letter dated February 16, 1989. It reflected the position as it existed on January 1, 1988. In this list the petitioner was shown at S1.No.67.The third respondent was placed at S1.No.178. The 4th respondent was at S1.No.157. This list was finalised by order dated January 27, 1990 vide Ext.P26(a). The petitioner was relegated to the position at S1.No.874. The third respondent was placed at S1.No.1011 and the 4th respondent was at S1.No.992. 5. The aggrieved parties approached the court through different petitions. These were disposed of by the judgment dated March 31, 1993. A copy of the judgment is at Ext.P27. The Division Bench while disposing of these petitions give directions regarding adjustment of the graduate engineers. 6. Presumably in pursuance to the directions given by the Division Bench the second respondent issued a provisional seniority list vide letter dated November 30, 1993. A copy of this list has been produced as Ext.P28(a). In this list the petitioner was made junior to both viz. respondents 3 and 4. He was placed at S1.No.1345. Respondents 3 and 4 were at S1.Nos.921 and 881 respectively. 7. A copy of this list has been produced as Ext.P28(a). In this list the petitioner was made junior to both viz. respondents 3 and 4. He was placed at S1.No.1345. Respondents 3 and 4 were at S1.Nos.921 and 881 respectively. 7. The list was challenged. Various representations were submitted. Vide order dated December 13, 1993 the Division Bench of this court directed the first respondent Board to consider and dispose of the representations. A copy of the order is annexed at Ext.P29. In pursuance to the directions of the court the Board passed an order for recasting of the seniority list. A copy of this order is annexed at Ext.P30. Ultimately on May 25, 1995 a provisional seniority list was published. A copy of this is at Ext.P34(a). The petitioner was shown senior to the third respondent. However he was shown junior to the 4th respondent. This provisional list was declared to be final on August 27, 1997. A copy of the order is at Ext.P35(a). Even in this list the petitioner was shown senior to the third respondent. 8. On October 16, 1998 the Board again took a somersault. It restored the provisional seniority list which had been issued on November 30, 1993. Resultantly the final seniority list prepared and notified on May 25, 1995 was superceded. The petitioner alleges that the seniority as notified vide letter dated October 16, 1998 was wholly contrary to the rules and principles of natural justice. The Chief Engineer had put up a note dated December 24, 1998 pointing out the errors in the order passed by the Board. However, since no action was taken he has approached this court through the present petition. He complains that the action of the Board in setting aside the final gradation list as issued on August 27, 1997 without giving any notice to the affected parties was in violation of the principles of natural justice. He prays that the order dated October 16, 1998, a copy of which is at Ext.P36, be quashed. 9. The respondents contest the petitioner’s case. It has been mainly pointed out that the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Engineer was not in conformity with the quota rule. His appointment as Assistant Engineer on April 28, 1979 was far in excess of the quota of 10% which was available for the category of employees to which he belongs. 9. The respondents contest the petitioner’s case. It has been mainly pointed out that the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Engineer was not in conformity with the quota rule. His appointment as Assistant Engineer on April 28, 1979 was far in excess of the quota of 10% which was available for the category of employees to which he belongs. Thus he could not be assigned seniority over persons who were appointed in accordance with the rules and the orders issued by the Board. 10. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The primary contention on behalf of the petitioner and similarly placed persons in the other writ petitions is that the final seniority list as notified on August 27, 1997 had been modified without the grant of any opportunity to the affected parties. It has also been submitted that in case an opportunity had been granted the factual position could have been pointed out. The failure to grant an opportunity has resulted in material miscarriage of justice. On behalf of the respondents it has been contended that the action is in strict conformity with the rules. 11. The question that arises for consideration is – Did the respondent-authority act in conformity with the principles of natural justice? 12. Admittedly the provisional seniority list had been published on May 25, 1995. In this list the petitioner had been shown senior to the third respondent. This position was maintained when a final seniority list was issued on August 27, 1997. Copy of the final seniority list is at Ext.P35(a). Again the petitioner was shown senior to the third respondent. Thereafter the position was altered vide order dated October 16, 1998. A copy of the order is at Ext.P36. By this order the petitioner was shown junior to respondents 3 and 4. Why? Was an opportunity given to him? A perusal of the order shows that representations had been submitted by some of the persons like A.P.Prasad and Sadanandan Pillai. However no notice of these representations was given to any of the parties. The Board had presumably accepted the representations without issuing any notice to the persons whose interests were likely to be affected. 13. It is well settled that even administrative orders must conform to the riules of natural justice. One of the basic rules is – vocate, interrogate and judicat – that is –call, question and decide. The Board had presumably accepted the representations without issuing any notice to the persons whose interests were likely to be affected. 13. It is well settled that even administrative orders must conform to the riules of natural justice. One of the basic rules is – vocate, interrogate and judicat – that is –call, question and decide. The purpose is to ensure that the person’s rights are not adversely affected without the grant of any opportunity. In the present case, no opportunity having been granted, the action was not in conformity with the basic rules of natural justice. 14. Mr.Prasad appearing for the petitioners in similar writ petition O.P.No.13732 of 1995 has also pointed out that in case an opportunity had been granted the petitioners could have shown that persons who were appointed against posts reserved for the category of Sportsman or Scheduled Cast/Scheduled Tribe were not entitled to the benefit of seniority as it had been given to them by the Board. So far as any grievance of individual officers is concerned, it would be for the Board to consider and take a decision. For the present, we find that the action was not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. That being so, the impugned order dated October 16, 1998, copy of which is at Ext.P36, cannot be sustained. It is quashed. It is however clarified that it will be open to the Board to take a fresh decision after hearing the parties concerned. It shall be open to the members of the service including the petitioners and respondents in the present proceedings to raise all possible pleas. The Board shall re-decide the matter after considering the objections which may be raised by the persons concerned. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. However, it is directed that the final order shall be passed within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the meantime the status quo as existing today with regard to the inter as seniority shall be maintained so that avoidable complications regarding promotion and posting of officers do not arise. No costs.