Judgment :- Whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority over respondents 3 to 11 is the issue to be decided in this original petition. The petitioner joined Government service on 8-2-1982 as L.D. Clerk in the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service. The recruitment was through the Public Service Commission. As per Ext.P1 proceedings of the first respondent, she was appointed as Assistant Grade II “for a period of 180 days or till vacancy expires whichever is earlier” in the Kerala High Court Service. The appointment was under Rule 17(a) of the Kerala High Court Service Rules. Thereafter she was appointed on a regular basis in the High Court Service with effect from 28-12-1987. As per Ext.P3 proceedings dated 25-11-1989 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade I retrospectively from 24-11-1988, reverted for want of vacancy with effect from 7-3-1989 and again appointed as Assistant Grade I with effect from 25-5-1989. It was clarified as per Ext.P4 that the appointment is in accordance with Rule 16A of the Rules. Petitioner was accorded seniority over respondents 3 to 11 as per Ext.P5 proceedings. The aggrieved respondents took up the matter in appeal and as per Ext.P6 the petitioner was informed that while granting promotion under Rule 16A of the Rules, seniors cannot be superseded by juniors even though they had acquired the test qualification. Ext.P7 dated 19-12-1991 is the consequential proceedings restoring seniority of respondents 3 to 11 over the petitioner. Petitioner was given regular appointment as Assistant Grade I with effect from 26-5-1990 whereas all the contesting respondents were accommodated against earlier dates. Exts.P6 and P7 are hence under challenge. 2. Sri. P.N.K.Achan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had successfully completed her probation in the subordinate judicial service in both categories of L.D. Clerk and U.D. Clerk and therefore a further probation in the High Court service is unnecessary. There is also a contention that seniority is to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment, as per Ext.P1 dated 25-6-1987. Still further it is contended that being an appointment by transfer, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized with effect from the date of initial appointment since she had already completed successfully her probation in the equivalent category namely U.D. Clerk in the subordinate judicial service. Still further it is contended that being an appointment by transfer, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized with effect from the date of initial appointment since she had already completed successfully her probation in the equivalent category namely U.D. Clerk in the subordinate judicial service. It is the case of the petitioner that she alone was available in the High Court service as test qualified, when vacancies arose and hence she should be promoted to the first arising vacancy of Assistant Grade I, after she joined duty. 3. Sri. T.P.Kelu Nambiar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner being a member of the Kerala High Court Service, she is to be governed by the Kerala High Court Service Rules. As per Rule 15(3) a person appointed on transfer to High Court service is entitled to count seniority from the date of Initial appointment only in case the appointment order contains an express statement by the appointing authority that the appointment is for administrative reasons. Admittedly there is no such express statement in the order of appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has to be governed by Rule 17 and the seniority can be counted only from the date of regular appointment as Assistant Grade II, 28-12-1987. Her probation was declared only on 10-1-1990. Admittedly by that time respondents 3 to 11 had successfully completed their probation. They had also passed the required test. It is further contended that having been appointed in the Kerala High Court service, she is to be governed by the provisions of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 1970 in the matter of probation. The said rules provide for fresh probation even in the case of transferred employees and therefore, there is no basis for the contention that she had successfully completed her probation in the subordinate judicial service. 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions under the Rules. Rule 10(a) and (b) dealing with probation read as follows:- 10. “Probation:- (a) Every person appointed to any category of the service otherwise than by promotion (or transfer from some other category in the service) shall be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. Rule 10(a) and (b) dealing with probation read as follows:- 10. “Probation:- (a) Every person appointed to any category of the service otherwise than by promotion (or transfer from some other category in the service) shall be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. (b) Every person appointed to any category of the service by promotion or transfer from some other category in the service shall be on probation for a period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years”. Rule 15 provides for seniority. It reads as follows: - 15. Seniority,--(1)(a) The seniority of a member in any category of the service shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such category. Provided that— (i) Where the first appointment is one made under Rule 17 seniority shall be determined by the date of the commencement of service which counts towards probation. (ii) Where a member has been transferred from one category to another under the first proviso to rule 5 the seniority of the member in the latter category shall be determined with reference to the date of his first appointment to the former category. (iii) Where a member has been transferred to category 8 in Division II under the second proviso to rule 5 the seniority of the member in the said category shall be determined with reference to the date on which he reached the minimum pay of that category. (b) where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this Rule, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority. (2) Where two or more persons are simultaneously appointed to a category their order of seniority shall be fixed by the appointing authority. (3) Where for administrative reasons an appointment is made by transfer to a category of the service from an equivalent or higher category of the Kerala Judicial Service or the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Service, the seniority of the member in the category to which he is appointed shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to the equivalent category provided that at or before the time of appointment an express statement is made under the orders of the Chief Justices that the appointment is for administrative reasons. Any questions as to what is an equivalent or higher category, shall be decided by the Chief Justice, whose decision shall be final.” Rule 16A deals with promotion. It reads as follows:- “16A. No member of the service shall be eligible for promotion from the category in which he was appointed unless he is declared to have satisfactory completed the period of probation in that category. Provided that a probationer in a category shall not be superseded for promotion to a higher category by his junior. If the vacancy in the higher category arises within the period specified in the rules for completion of probation in the category in which he is a probationer and if he has passed the test or tests prescribed for successful completion of probation and is otherwise eligible and suitable for such promotion. But his promotion shall be subject to the condition that he satisfactorily completes the probation in the category from which he was promoted within the period prescribed there for and for this purpose the period of service put in by him in the higher category shall be reckoned towards probation in the category from which he was promoted and also in the category to which he was promoted. Provided further that if a probationer promoted in pursuance of the above proviso falls to complete his probation in the category from which he was promoted within the period prescribed there for his probation in the higher category shall be terminated and he shall be reverted to the category from which he was promoted, and any subsequent promotion of such person to the higher category shall not also entitle such person to claim seniority in the higher category by reason only of his previous promotion in pursuance of the preceding proviso and he shall commence probation afresh in that category from the date of such subsequent promotion.” Rules 17 deals with temporary appointment. It reads as follows: - “17. Temporary appointments. (a) Where it is necessary to fill a vacancy in the service and there would be undue delay or administrative inconvenience in appointing a person who is qualified for or entitled to such appointed or a duly qualified person is not available the appointing authority may appoint any other suitable person temporarily until an appointment is made in accordance with these Rules. Such temporary appointment shall not be made for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time and a regular appointment in accordance with these Rules shall be made as soon as possible. (b) A person appointed under sub-rule (a) shall not be regarded as a probationer in the post and shall not by reason only of such appointment be entitled to any preferential claim to further appointment. If he is subsequently appointed to the post in accordance with these Rules, he shall commence his probation in the post from the date of such subsequent appointment or from such earlier date as the appointing authority may determine.” 5. The above statutory provision, to the extent require for resolving the dispute in the instant case, lead to the following interference: (i) The Kerala High Court Service Rules require a person appointed to any category to undergo probation for a total period of two years. (ii) The person thus appointed commences his probation from the date of regular appointment. (iii) In case the appointment is by transfer from any other category in the High Court Service, such a person need undergo probation only one year, at par with promotees. (iv) Seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of service which counts towards probation from the date of regular appointment. (v) It is open to the appointing authority to appoint any person by transfer either from Kerala Judicial Service or Kerala Judicial Subordinate Service for administrative reasons and in case an express statement to that effect is made under the orders of the Chief Justice at the relevant time, the person thus appointed is entitled to claim seniority from the date of first appointment in the respective service. (vi) In the absence of such express statement a person appointed under Rule 17(a) is not entitled to claim seniority even from the date of temporary appointment. (vii) A probationer in a category shall not be superseded by his junior for promotion against a vacancy in the higher category arising during the period of probation. (viii) The Rules do not permit a junior probationer to be promoted to higher category. However, a junior probationer can be appointed temporarily to the higher category under Rule 17. (vii) A probationer in a category shall not be superseded by his junior for promotion against a vacancy in the higher category arising during the period of probation. (viii) The Rules do not permit a junior probationer to be promoted to higher category. However, a junior probationer can be appointed temporarily to the higher category under Rule 17. (ix) Subject to seniority, a probationer if he has passed the test and if he is otherwise eligible and suitable, can be promoted to a higher category. (x) The Rules permit temporary appointments under certain contingencies. But such temporary appointees are not entitled to count that period for the purposes of probation. 6. As far as the petitioner is concerned her regular appointment commenced only with effect from 28-12-1987 as per Ext.P2. There is no express statement at the relevant time that the same is for administrative reasons. It is not in dispute that respondents 3 to 11 are seniors to the petitioner, going by the date of regular appointment. Petitioner successfully completed her probation only on 10-1-1990 whereas respondents 3 to 11 had completed their probation before that date. There is no case for the petitioner that any of the party respondents had been given promotion without completing the period of probation or before passing the test. There is also no case that the said respondents were promoted ignoring petitioner’s legitimate claim. The contention is that during her period of probation, there arose vacancies and since the petitioner alone was test qualified, she should be appointed superceding the senior probationers. That contention cannot be appreciated. The Rules do not contemplate such an advantage to the junior probationers. Probationers need to pass the test only during the period of probation. Therefore, junior probationer is not entitled to get any added advantage on the ground of test qualification for the purposes of promotion during probation. Such advantage is available only to senior probationers. 7. As far as the Kerala High Court Service Rules is concerned, it provides for probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment. Petitioner contends that in the case of appointees like the petitioner, who had already completed their probation in the equivalent category in the subordinate judicial service, there is no justification for insisting further probation under the High Court Service. The contention cannot be appreciated. It is not a case of inter-departmental transfer. Petitioner contends that in the case of appointees like the petitioner, who had already completed their probation in the equivalent category in the subordinate judicial service, there is no justification for insisting further probation under the High Court Service. The contention cannot be appreciated. It is not a case of inter-departmental transfer. It is an appointment in a new service. Such appointees are bound by the statute governing the service, in the instant case, the Kerala High Court Services Rules, 1970. Whether the provision for a period of two years probation in the case of those persons who had completed their probation in the subordinate judicial service is reasonable or not is a different question. That question need not be tackled in the instant case since the relevant provision is not under challenge. It is also not a case of transfer from one category to another in the same service. 8. Therefore, the petitioner can legitimately claim promotion in the category of Assistant Grade I only after her successful completion of the probation. There is no case that she was not given the first arising vacancy in the category of Assistant Grade I after she completed the probation, on 10-1-1990. 9. All that apart, it is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that Ext.P7 had already been reviewed as per Ext.R1(b) dated 9-7-1993. The petitioner has not challenged that order. For all the above reasons this original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.