Judgment :- The issue raised in all these writ petitions pertains to promotion to the post of Overseer (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. The question to be decided is as to when there are more than one feeder category carrying different scales of pay, should there be preference to the category with higher scale of pay as against length of service, in the matter of promotion to a higher post. The documents are referred to as marked in O.P.No.8816 of 2003. Under the 1978 long-term settlement it was agreed to provide for a ratio for promotion to the post of Lineman. It will be profitable to extract the relevant clause in the settlement which is produced as Ext.R3(a). “5. In view of the loss of promotion opportunities arising from enhancement of work-norms, it is agreed subject to the concurrence of Public Service Commission that: (a) Lineman: All the vacancies of Lineman that will occur immediately on the implementation of the revised work-norms will be filled up by promotion, in relaxation of recruitment rules, in the following manner. 60% by promotion from the cadre of Senior Assistant Lineman. 40% by promotion from workmen of and below the pay scales of lineman qualified for direct recruitment as Lineman according to length of service. Preference will be given to I.T.I. Certificate Holders according to length of service. Vacancies arising thereafter will be filled up in the following manner. i. 40% promotion from Senior Assistant Lineman. ii. 10% by appointment through Public Service Commission from among qualified Board Employees. Demand of the Unions for change in the mode of appointment will be further discussed. iii. 50% by direct recruitment through P.S.C.” Thus it can be seen that the 40% promotion from workmen of and below the pay scale of Lineman were to be made subject of course to the qualification according to the length of service. It is also significant to note that as far as future vacancies as contemplated in the 1978 settlement only 10% was left for appointment from the qualified Board employees. There was no reference regarding length of service on that 10% and the selection was to be made by the Public Service Commission. 2. It is also significant to note that as far as future vacancies as contemplated in the 1978 settlement only 10% was left for appointment from the qualified Board employees. There was no reference regarding length of service on that 10% and the selection was to be made by the Public Service Commission. 2. Coming to 1986 settlement, (Ext.R3(b) “the workmen in the category of Lineman in the scale of pay of Rs.675-1240 (revised) and the Second Grade Overseer in the scale of pay of Rs.765-1330 (revised) will be integrated with effect from 1-8-1986. The integrated category will be redesignated as Overseer (Electrical). For this purpose, the Lineman in the scale of pay of Rs.675-1240 (revised) will be taken together as a block without disturbing their interse seniority and placed below the junior-most Second Grade Overseer (Electrical) in the service of Board. Overseer (Electrical) will carry out the duties, functions and responsibilities now being carried out by the second Grade Overseers and Lineman. Promotion to the category of Overseer (Electrical) will be from the category of Line Assistant in the ratio of 60:40 between qualified and unqualified hands”. It can be seen from the 1986 settlement that 60% of the vacancies in the post of Overseer (Electrical) were reserved to qualified Line Assistants and 40% to the unqualified. But the feeder category was limited to that of Line Assistant only. 3. Coming to 1995 settlement the relevant extract of which is produced as Ext.P10 the ratio was changed. To quote “the existing ratio of 60:40 between qualified and unqualified hands of lower categories for promotion to the posts of Overseer (Ele.) will be revised as 40:60. Out of the 40% earmarked for qualified hands 10% vacancies will reserved for persons with ITI (Non-electrical) and 5% vacancies will be reserved for persons with a pass in 8th standard and 5 years field experience.” In other words 25% of the vacancies are reserved for employees with ITI (Electrical). 4. When the 1986 settlement contemplated promotion to the post of Overseer (Electrical) only from the Line Assistant, both qualified and unqualified, why did the settlement use the expression “the existing ratio of 60:40 between qualified and unqualified hands of lower categories for promotion to the post of Overseer (Electrical)? 4. When the 1986 settlement contemplated promotion to the post of Overseer (Electrical) only from the Line Assistant, both qualified and unqualified, why did the settlement use the expression “the existing ratio of 60:40 between qualified and unqualified hands of lower categories for promotion to the post of Overseer (Electrical)? Though several chances were given to the Board to explain the situation, the answer finally came out from the petitioners and that is Ext.P15 communication from the Board to the Government dated 29-3-1989. It is stated that there was a conference between the representatives of two recognized trade unions and the Board on 16-10-1988 and 24-11-1988 and it was decided that the 60% vacancies earmarked for qualified Line Assistants for promotion to the post of Overseer (Electrical) would be modified as qualified employees of the Board in the scale of pay and below that of Overseer possessing the requisite qualification. It is seen from Ext.P16 that in anticipation of Government sanction promotions were effected also. It is stated therein that “these promotions are against the 60% quota earmarked for qualified hands as per clause 3, Article VII of the Long Term Settlement dt.28-7-86, from among Board employees working in the pay scales of and below that of Overseer and possessing the requisite general and technical qualifications as prescribed in Board’s ltr. No.PS1-84/88 dtd.29-3-89”. One significant factor to be noted from Ext.P16 effected on 14-1-1993 is that all the 56 promotees to the post of Overseer are Meter Readers. It is also to be noted that the post of Meter Reader itself was introduced only in the year 1989. It is not in dispute also. Though there were several feeder categories below the post of Overseer, at least there are 30, only the Meter Readers were granted the benefit of promotion from the lower categories. There were admittedly many qualified employees in other 29 categories with longer service. Yet nobody challenged those promotions. Obviously the promotion was not on the basis of length of service since the post itself was introduced only in 1989. This is indicative of the fact that of all the lower categories below that of Overseer (Electrical), the Meter Readers were preferred since they were having the highest scale of pay among the lower categories. 5. Obviously the promotion was not on the basis of length of service since the post itself was introduced only in 1989. This is indicative of the fact that of all the lower categories below that of Overseer (Electrical), the Meter Readers were preferred since they were having the highest scale of pay among the lower categories. 5. The action taken by the Board as above cannot be faulted, if the same is scrutinized under the mandate of Rule 28(b)(i) Note (vi) and (vii) which are extracted below:- “28(b)(i). Note (vi) When there are more than one feeder category carrying different scales of pay, they shall be shown in separate lists and persons in a lower scale of pay shall be appointed only after appointing all persons on a higher scale of pay, unless the Special Rules prescribe a ratio or any special order or preference for each feeder category. (vii) When the posts in the feeder categories are on the same scale of pay and there is no fixed ratio, appointment shall be made in accordance with their seniority in the feeder category, the seniority being determined by the date of the order of first appointment to that particular category, class or grade.” The provision indicates that when there are several feeder categories carrying different scales of pay, in the matter of promotion, preference shall be given to the persons with higher scale of pay. A division Bench of this court in the judgment dated 21-3-1991 in W.A.No.789 of 1988 and connected cases, has also considered the question of method of promotion from several feeder categories. It has been held that even in the absence of Rules, the same principle as prescribed in the general rules should be followed. To quote from paragraph 6 of the judgment:- “It should be borne-in-mind that clauses (vi) and (vii) of rule 28(b) enunciate principles to be followed in the matter of determining seniority when there are more than one feeder category carrying different scales of pay or when the posts in the feeder categories are in the same scale of pay. Ordinarily, the same principle must given govern cases when there are more than one category of posts falling in the same feeder category. …… …… …… Clause (vi), in our opinion, enunciates a good general principle of service law. Ordinarily, the same principle must given govern cases when there are more than one category of posts falling in the same feeder category. …… …… …… Clause (vi), in our opinion, enunciates a good general principle of service law. When there are more than one feeder category carrying different scales of pay, they should be shown in separate lists and persons bearing lower scales of pay should be appointed only after the appointment of persons bearing the higher scale of pay unless the Special Rules prescribe a ratio or a special order of preference for each feeder category. Admittedly in this case there are no special rules prescribing any ratio nor any special order of preference for each feeder category. When there are different categories of posts, particularly in the same department with higher and lower scales of pay, it is reasonable to presume that those in the higher scale of pay must be regarded as superior and senior to those in the lower scale of pay, unless there are indications to the contrary in the scheme of the rules. If such is ot the principle that is followed, it is likely to lead to incongruous results, where a person in the higher category may have to yield place to a person in the lower category who continues in the lower category for a longer period possibly because he could not be promoted to the higher category as he was not found adequate for promotion to the higher post. In such a situation a person who is less meritorious will gain a preferential claim for the next higher post over one who is admittedly more superior to him”. 6. According to me there is one more mischief that could take place unless this principle is followed. An employee from a lower category who has worked under a superior, will get a march over his superior and will become his superior only on the basis of length of service, when the superior thus passed over is as qualified as the other. In that view of the matter also, in the case of promotions from several lower categories, it is only just, fair and reasonable that employees with higher scale of pay are preferred to others, without undue weight being given to the length of service, lest it should violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. In that view of the matter also, in the case of promotions from several lower categories, it is only just, fair and reasonable that employees with higher scale of pay are preferred to others, without undue weight being given to the length of service, lest it should violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. The legal position and the undisputed practice in the Board being what is stated above, it is not necessary to deal with other aspects of the case. Having not acted in accordance with law and practice, I quash the impugned order No.EB4-120(C)/1999 dated Thiruvananthapuram 7-2-2003 with a further direction to make the promotions in the light of this judgment within one month from today. 8. In O.P.No.15995/2003 there is also a grievance regarding the fixation of interse seniority between promotees and direct recruits in the cadre of Meter Readers. Despite the quota fixed in Ext.P4 dated 5-10-1990 in the said writ petition, interse seniority between the promotees and direct recruits has not so far been fixed. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 in the said writ petition to take steps for the preparation of interse seniority between direct recruit Meter Readers and promotee Meter Readers. Appropriate action in this regard shall be taken in this regard within a period of six months from today. Any promotions made in excess of the quota shall be reviewed in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.