Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. The appellants in the three writ appeals and the petitioners in O.P.No.5818/02 claimed direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector (District Armed Reserve) pursuant to a notification, Ext.P1 in O.P.No.5818/02. We will refer to the exhibits as marked in that petition, unless otherwise specified. Candidates like them came before this court as the department was not reporting to the Public Service Commission (PSC) the vacancies set apart for direct recruitment for being advised for appointment. They were fortunate enough to get interim orders including that passed on 30.5.1991, to report the available vacancies to the PSC. They were, on reporting the vacancies, advised for appointment on 4.1.1993. Their contention was that the list Ext.P2 prepared by the Public Service Commission based on Ext.P1 notification ought to have been kept alive for three years. It was this contention which was urged in O.P.Nos.4352/91, 9024/91 & 2062/91, which gave rise to the above three writ appeals. It was in the said original petitions the interim direction as mentioned above had been issued. But finally, the said Original Petitions were dismissed following a Division Bench Judgment in O.P.No.5676/1998. In the meantime, they had already obtained advise for appointment and had been really appointed. They apprehend that the dismissal of the Original Petitions might affect their appointment. Faced with that situation the writ appeals have been preferred. 2. In the meanwhile, the department published a provisional seniority list of Sub Inspectors (District Armed Reserve) Ext.P3 in O.P.No.31240/01. This seniority list was finalized as per Ext.P6 in that Original Petition. Therein the writ appellants and the petitioners in O.P.No.5818/02 were ranked above the writ petitioners in O.P.No.31240/01. They could understand that these persons were ranked above them in Ext.P6 final seniority list, because of Ext.P7 order of relaxation passed by Government in favour of the writ appellants and similarly placed persons, exercising the power under rule 39 of the General Rules in KS & SSR, so as to retain them in service in spite of dismissal of the Original Petitions filed by them. It is contended that, when the three original petitions which gave rise to the above three writ appeals have been dismissed, the advice made and appointments effected pursuant to the interim orders issued in the said three original petitions loose efficacy and the incumbents do not get any right for continuance of their appointment effected based on the interim order, which was only subject to the result of those three Original Petitions. Therefore, the writ appellants and the petitioners in O.P.No.5818/02 cannot hold their appointment on regular basis. Their appointments are regularized only based on Ext.P7 relaxation order impugned in O.P.No.31240/01. This order is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the power vested in Government under Rule 39 could have been invoked only to deal with any situation equitably so that any person may not suffer from disabilities. A person who had obtained appointment based on an interim order from this court, cannot claim the post when the Original Petition itself has been dismissed. That will not be a situation to equitably deal with invoking Rule 39. In this regard the decision reported in Renjeev V. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 871 is also relied on. It is further submitted that even it Government wishes to invoke such a power, as it may affect others like them, including in the matter of seniority, they ought to have been heard. There had been no such hearing before Ext.P7 was issued. The decision reported in Varghese v. State of Kerala (1988 (1) 507 is relied on in this respect. Therefore, it is submitted that Ext.P7 does not have any legal efficacy. When Ext.P7 looses its efficacy, the appointees who had been retained as per Ext.P7 can, at the best, in order to avoid any termination, claim regularisation from the date of the said order-and not retrospectively-in which case they shall take rank in Ext.P6 final seniority list as juniors to the petitioners in O.P.No.31240/01. 3. To appreciate these submissions, necessarily, the contention raised in the writ appeals as well as in O.P.No.5818/02 shall have to be considered first. We will indicate all of them as appellants for convenience. 4. The appellants approached this court with the three Original Petitions which lead to the three writ appeals, seeking a direction to report the vacancies available for direct recruitment, to the PSC. We will indicate all of them as appellants for convenience. 4. The appellants approached this court with the three Original Petitions which lead to the three writ appeals, seeking a direction to report the vacancies available for direct recruitment, to the PSC. The interim order dated 30.5.1991 issued by this court did not specify the number of vacancies to be reported. Going by the counter affidavit, vacancies were available for direct recruitment as mentioned above. Therefore the advise of the appellants based on the interim order was against the vacancies available for direct recruitment as on the date of recruitment, namely the date of notification 24.9.1985, going by the definition of direct recruitment in Rule 2(12) of Part I of KS & SS Rules. Therefore, according to them, they did not need any relaxation as contained in Ext.P7 which is impugned in O.P. 31240/01. Their advice was during the currency of the ranked list as provided in rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the PSC. So even going by the decision of the Division Bench, relied on in the impugned judgment, their advice was legal and sustainable. In such circumstances, as they had been advised based on the interim orders passed by this court against the vacancies available for direct recruitment, for the purpose of seniority they shall have to get their date of advice reckoned for seniority in which case the ranking contained in Ext.P6 final seniority list impugned in O.P.31240/01 cannot be stated to be illegal, it is contended. 5. As already mentioned above, the appellants responded to Ext.P1 notification published by the Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (District Armed Reserve). The appellants found place in Ext.P2 rank list, Ext.P3 rules relating to the method of appointment, provides that 50% of the posts shall be filled up by direct recruitment. According to them, initially Government reported only 27 vacancies, even though nearly 100 vacancies ought to have been reported for direct recruitment, going by the cadre strength on the date of issuance of the notification, viz 24.9.85. The Govt. pleader has filed a memo in W.A.No.2191/02 indicating that as on the said date the cadre strength of the sub Inspectors (Armed Reserve) was 220 which included 51 temporary posts as well. If this is the cadre strength as on the date of notification there shall be 110 direct recruits. The Govt. pleader has filed a memo in W.A.No.2191/02 indicating that as on the said date the cadre strength of the sub Inspectors (Armed Reserve) was 220 which included 51 temporary posts as well. If this is the cadre strength as on the date of notification there shall be 110 direct recruits. Going by the counter statement filed in O.P.No.2062/91 leading to W.A.No.2189/02 as per the letter received by Government from the Director General of Police on 22.5.1984, the cadre strength was 187. Out of these 119 posts were occupied by promotees and 41 by directly recruited persons. Going by this arithmetic there was a dearth of 52 direct recruits. Necessarily, that much persons ought to have been appointed by direct recruitment from Ext.P2 list prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. 6. The writ petitioners in O.P.No.31240/01 contend that Ext.P1 notification specifies only 27 vacancies for direct recruitment from open market. In such circumstances the writ appellants could not have claimed any more vacancies than those so notified. Therefore, they could not have occupied the post without the relaxation orders as contained in Ext.P7. So they cannot get seniority based on the date of advice, which was in excess of the vacancies notified. 7. We have to consider the rival claims based on the details furnished in the counter affidavit in O.P.No.2062/91, giving rise to writ appeal No.2189/02 and the relevant rules. 8. As already mentioned above, in the letter addressed by the Director General of Police on 22.5.1984, the Govt. reveals that, there were 187 posts as on that date, in the cadre of the post in question, Admittedly promotees were in excess of their eligible 50% quota. To satisfy the 50% quota, there should have been 93 direct recruits. As against this there were only 41 directly recruited Sub Inspectors. Counter affidavit further reveals that 11 posts were set apart for special recruitment of candidates from SC/ST as per rule 17A of the General Rules in KS & SS Rules. Going by the decision reported in State of Kerala V. Sreekantan (1993 (1) KLT 107 this much posts shall be deducted from the cadre strength to give effect to the quota rule. Going by the decision reported in State of Kerala V. Sreekantan (1993 (1) KLT 107 this much posts shall be deducted from the cadre strength to give effect to the quota rule. The Full Bench noted that; “Special Recruitment under R.17A has to be treated as a separate category of direct recruits and it will be unfair to accommodate such special recruits exclusively in the quota earmarked for direct recruits. Accordingly we agree with the learned Single Judge that the number or special recruits will have to be deducted from the total number of vacancies and the ratio prescribed for direct recruits and promotees under the Special Rules has to be applied for the remaining posts” So the quota rule has to be worked out on 176 posts, deducting the number of special recruits. Fifty Per cent thereof comes to 88. Forty one direct recruits were already occupying the posts. Therefore dearth comes only to 47. 9. Rule 2(12) Part I of KS & SSR defines what is meant by “recruited direct”. It reads; “A candidate is said to be “recruited direct” to a service, class, category or post when, in case the appointment has to be done in consultation with the commission, on the date of the notification by the commission inviting applications for the recruitment, and in any other case, at the time or appointment- xxxxxxx …. After notification it will take some length of time for completing the recruitment process and to effect appointment. When thus one is appointed, going by the said definition, he would be taken as directly recruited on the date of the notification published by the PSC, commencing the process of recruitment. A detail analysis of the rules in KS & SSR will reveal that this date or definition has no relevancy except to ascertain when a candidate is directly recruited. Whether a candidate is directly recruited or promoted is to be considered only for the purpose of application of the respective quota fixed by the relevant rules or orders providing the method of appointment. Therefore, the relevance of this definition is for computation of quota; and the relevant date is the date of direct recruitment viz; the date of notification. So the quota shall be worked out based on the date of direct recruitment which is the same as date of notification. 10. Therefore, the relevance of this definition is for computation of quota; and the relevant date is the date of direct recruitment viz; the date of notification. So the quota shall be worked out based on the date of direct recruitment which is the same as date of notification. 10. As on that date going by the details provided in the counter affidavit as considered supra, there was a dearth of 47 direct recruits. So such number of persons alone could be advised from Ext.P2 list. 11. Recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector is not directly for appointment, but for training. Successful completion of training is an essential pre-requisite for appointment. A list for recruiting candidates for training shall be in force for a period of one year or until the expiry of a period of one month from the commencement of the training by the last batch advised during the said one year. It is provided so in Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the Public Service Commission, which reads as under. “13. The ranked lists published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier. Provided that the above rule shall not apply in respect of ranked lists of candidates for admission to Training Course that leads to automatic appointment in services or posts and that in such cases the Ranked Lists shall cease to be in force after one year from the date of finalisation of the Ranked Lists or after one month from the date of commencement of the course in respect of the last batch selected from the list within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the ranked list whichever is later….” 12. Ext.P2 list was finalized and brought into force by the Public Service Commission on 5/6/1990. The first batch advised from Ext.P2 list started training on 15.2.1991 as averred in para 12 of the counter affidavit in O.P.No.2062/91. Therefore the list expired on 5-6-91, when the period of one year from the date of its enforcement elapsed. Ext.P2 list was finalized and brought into force by the Public Service Commission on 5/6/1990. The first batch advised from Ext.P2 list started training on 15.2.1991 as averred in para 12 of the counter affidavit in O.P.No.2062/91. Therefore the list expired on 5-6-91, when the period of one year from the date of its enforcement elapsed. The interim order to report the vacancies available for direct recruitment was passed by this court on 30.5.1991. This was thus before the expiry of the said list. Therefore advice made pursuant to the interim order, to the extent of vacancies if any available for direct recruitment has to be taken as within the currency of Ext.P2 list. 13. Now we have to decide how much vacancies were available for direct recruitment. Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure provides as under; “The commission shall advise candidates for all vacancies reported and pending before them and the vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the rank list are kept alive in the order of priority if any and in the order of merit subject to the rules of reservation, rotation whatever they are applicable. 14. Going by this rule, the contention that appointment by direct recruitment shall be confined only to the number of vacancies mentioned in Ext.P1 notification cannot be in any way accepted. The list can be acted upon for filling up the vacancies which may be reported to them during the period when the rank lists are kept alive. Therefore, the entire vacancies available for direct recruitment ought to have been reported to the Public Service Commission during the currency of Ext.P2 list and equal number candidates could have been appointed on direct recruitment notwithstanding the number of vacancies specified in the notification. As already found above the available dearth of direct recruits was 47. 15. The averments in para 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent reveals that 40 vacancies had already been reported to the Public Service Commission and the candidates advised against those vacancies started training on 16.2.1991. So based on the interim order only 7 vacancies alone could have been reported and only that much candidates alone could have been advised and appointed going by the quota rule worked out as on the date of direct recruitment viz. So based on the interim order only 7 vacancies alone could have been reported and only that much candidates alone could have been advised and appointed going by the quota rule worked out as on the date of direct recruitment viz. The date of notification, going by Rule 2(12) Part I KS & SSR; as discussed above. 16. So only the first 7 candidates advised after the interim order dated 30.5.1991 alone were thus legally eligible for the vacancies against the 50% quota of direct recruitment. Others in excess of that 7 are not so eligible as per law. The appellants were advised pursuant to the interim orders mentioned above. If they are accommodated, necessarily, it will adversely affect the rights of the promotees to occupy their eligible quota as per the method of appointment. 17. Going by Rule 27(c) of the General Rules in KS & SSR, the seniority of an incumbent recruited directly through the PSC shall have to be reckoned with reference to the date of advice. In the case of promotees it shall be from the date of promotion. The petitioners in O.P.No.31240/01 were promoted after the advice of the appellants and similar other candidates. 18. But the candidates included in Ext.P2 list were not entitled to in excess of 47 vacancies as mentioned above. Forty candidates were already advised earlier. Therefore the first 7 candidates in the advice list issued by the PSC pursuant to the interim order alone are legally entitled to the appointment going by the quota rule. The seniority of such seven candidates among the appellants and similarly placed persons including the petitioners in O.P.No.5818/02, if they come within the first 7 candidates so advised shall be fixed as mentioned above with reference to the date of their advice. For these persons therefore no exemption or relaxation as ordered in Ext.P7 is required at all; as their appointment was against the eligible 50% quota for direct recruitment as on the date of direct recruitment defined in rule 2(12) of Part I KS & SS Rules. 19. The remaining candidates appointed on direct recruitment, on the basis of the interim order in excess of the said 7 posts, loose their right to hold the posts on dismissal of the three original petitions in which the interim orders were issued. 20. 19. The remaining candidates appointed on direct recruitment, on the basis of the interim order in excess of the said 7 posts, loose their right to hold the posts on dismissal of the three original petitions in which the interim orders were issued. 20. Dismissal of the three Original Petitions cannot be any more validly agitated in the three writ appeals because, (1) they did not have the eligibility for advice and appointment in excess of the specified quota as on the date when they were recruited direct (2) the currency of the list came to an end on 5/6/1991 on expiry of one year from the date when it was brought into force, as found in para 12 above going by Rule 13 of the Rule of Procedure and therefore no further candidates could have been advised or appointed from that list and (3) this position is settled as per the decision of a Division Bench in O.P.No.5676/88 as relied on in the judgment impugned in the writ appeals. 21. Therefore the persons advised in excess of 7 vacancies as mentioned above cannot continue in service on dismissal of the Original Petitions. Because, they were advised and consequently appointed simply based on the interim order obtained, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Mohanan V. State of Kerala (1997 (1) KLT 327) that an “interim order is subject to the result of outcome of the final adjudication. If the petitioner is not successful in the final decision, the interim order would stand set aside. So, appointment by interim order does not create any right nor the petitioner gets any right to reqularisation on that basis.” We are also in agreement with the view taken by a learned Single Judge of this court in Veepathu V. Aeo (1998 (1) KLT 282 that “A party approaching this Court may be able to obtain an interim order by virtue of which he was able to continue in service. But when ultimately the Original Petition is dismissed or the interim order is vacated, the parties will not be deriving any benefit out of those orders.” 22. So they can continue in the post only based on the relaxation or exemption as ordered in Ext.P7. But any relaxation or exemption granted shall not affect the vested rights of those already in service, including in the matter of seniority. So they can continue in the post only based on the relaxation or exemption as ordered in Ext.P7. But any relaxation or exemption granted shall not affect the vested rights of those already in service, including in the matter of seniority. Before passing Ext.P7, the incumbents in service like the petitioners in O.P.No.31240/01 were not heard. It has been held in Varghese V. State of Kerala (1988 (1) KLT 507) that “the order of the State Government Ext.P2 is not sustainable for the reason that the said order adversely affects the rights of the other parties, particularly the rights of petitioners 1 and 2 who came to be reverted on the strength of Ext.P2, that having been passed without due notice to the persons likely to be affected by the said order. This court has ruled in 1973 KLT 151 between T.C. Sreedharan Pillai & Ors & State of Kerala & Others that it is obligatory to give a hearing to persons likely to be affected, particularly in all cases where the order proposed to be passed will have the direct consequence of affecting the settled seniority or rank of any of the other person in the service or of upsetting promotions already given to them. It is not disputed that neither petitioners 1 and 2 nor other persons whose seniority was likely to be affected in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks were given an opportunity of showing cause in the matter. That being the position, the order, Ext.P2 of the State Government made under rule 30 (sic 39) of the KS & SSR cannot be sustained.” 23. Admittedly, none was heard before exemption and relaxation was ordered in Ext.P7. Therefore it is illegal. Ext.P7 can not operate retrospectively to adversely affect the seniority of persons, who were already promoted before the date of its issue. It can at the best take effect only from the date of its issue to save their appointment and consequently such persons except the 7 indicated earlier can take seniority only from the date of Ext.P7 alone. So the ranking of the persons in excess of those 7, in Ext.P6 seniority list impugned in O.P.No.31240/01 over the petitioners therein is illegal. We hold so. 24. So the ranking of the persons in excess of those 7, in Ext.P6 seniority list impugned in O.P.No.31240/01 over the petitioners therein is illegal. We hold so. 24. But even without Ext.P7, the first 7 among the direct recruits advised pursuant to the interim order can get the ranking in the final seniority list Ext.P6 impugned in O.P.No.31240/01. It has therefore to be upheld to that extend, subject to the contention of the petitioners in O.P.Nos.3596/95 and 5818/02, which we will consider later. 25. In such circumstances, Writ Appeals have to be dismissed and O.P.No.31240/01 challenging Ext.P7 has to be allowed in part as against those in excess of the 1st 7 persons advised from Ext.P2 list, pursuant to the interim orders. 26. Now we will consider the two remaining Original Petitions, O.P.No.5818/02 and 3596/99. The challenge in O.P.No.5818/02 is against Ext.P14 final seniority list (Ext.P6, in O.P.No.31240/01). Therefore the final seniority list will be here-in-after referred to as Ext.P14. It is contended that the 3rd respondent in O.P.No.5818/02, who is the petitioner in O.P.No.3596/99 was a directly recruited Assistant Sub Inspector. He was directly recruited so on 21.4.1989. He is placed in the said seniority list above the petitioners in O.P.No.5818/02 who had been advised for appointment on 4.1.93. Going by the rules regarding promotion to the posts of Head Constable and Haviladar and above covered by Ext.P14 marked in O.P.No.3596/99, an incumbent should have completed 5 years of service to aspire for promotion. The relevant clause in is as follows: “For promotion as sub-inspectors in the District Armed Reserve and as Plattom Commanders in the Malabar Special Police and Special Armed Police Battalions, only men who have completed a total service of five years and have served for not less than two years in a rank not lower than Havildar or Section Commander shall be considered.” 27. Going by this provision before an incumbent can aspire for promotion as Sub Inspector, he should have a total service for a period of 5 years. The petitioner in O.P.No.3596/99 was appointed as ASI on direct recruitment only on 21/4/89. He is assigned the date of promotion as Sub Inspector on 17.12.92. As on the said date be did not have 5 years total service as provided in the Government order as extracted above. So he cannot get promotion as SI on 17/2/92. The petitioner in O.P.No.3596/99 was appointed as ASI on direct recruitment only on 21/4/89. He is assigned the date of promotion as Sub Inspector on 17.12.92. As on the said date be did not have 5 years total service as provided in the Government order as extracted above. So he cannot get promotion as SI on 17/2/92. Therefore his placement in the seniority list above the writ petitioners in O.P.No.5818/02 is illegal, it is contended. 28. It is at this juncture we have to consider the challenge against the said Govt. Order, urged in O.P.No.3596/99. The contention urged is that he was recruited as Assistant Sub Inspector, in terms of the special rules, Ext.P1, in O.P.No.3596/99. The Govt. order which insists for 5 years of service is only in respect of those recruited as Head Constables who aspire for promotion as sub Inspector. It does not cover persons directly recruited as Assistant Sub Inspector in terms of Ext.P1 Special rules, it is submitted. 29. Ext.P1 in O.P.No.3596/99 is applicable only for the purpose of special recruitment of scheduled castes and schedule tribe candidates to the category of Assistant Sub Inspector only against the specified number of vacancies. It cannot operate any more if once a candidate is appointed on special recruitment covered by Ext.P1 and after he becomes a member of service. When he is thus appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector, necessarily, for further promotion from that post, Ext.P1 cannot be an aid for him. It is of no avail for further promotion. He shall have to satisfy the qualification and other requirements specified for the post to which he aspires for promotion. The post to which he aspires for promotion is the post of Sub Inspector. As per the said Govt. Order “for promotion as Sub Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve and as Plattom Commanders in the Malabar Special Police and Special Armed Police Battalions, only men who have completed a total service of five years and have served for not less than two years in a rank not lower than Havildar or Section Commander shall be considered.” Thus promotion to that post is subject to certain conditions including the stipulation that an incumbent aspiring for promotion as Sub Inspector shall have at least 5 years of total service. Admittedly he was recruited only on 21.4.89. Admittedly he was recruited only on 21.4.89. As on the date of promotion as Sub Inspector assigned to him, namely 17.2.1992, he does not have 5 years of total service. In the absence of any special rules, going by Article 309 the Government is competent to issue orders regulating appointment and promotion. It is one among the said orders regulating the promotion to the post of Sub Inspector in question. It is perfectly as enjoined in and enabled by Article 309. There are no rules framed under Article 309 or in exercise of the powers conferred by the Kerala Public Service Act governing the method of appointment to the post of Sub Inspector in Armed Reserve. Necessarily, the competence of the Government to issue Ext.P14 order prescribing 5 years of total service for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector cannot be said to be without any authority or power. Prescription of such minimum service qualification is not in any way arbitrary or unreasonable. It cannot be said to be unjustified to invite interference. Necessarily the challenge against that Govt. order, Ext.P14 raised in O.P.No.3596/99 shall fail. 30. When Ext.P14 therefore governs the method of appointment to the post of Sub Inspector in Armed Reserve which makes a requirement of total service of 5 years as essential, necessarily the 3rd respondent in O.P.No.5818/02 (the petitioner in O.P.No.3596/99) could not have been included in the seniority list assigning him a date of promotion as Sub Inspector of police, as 17.2.1992. Necessarily, placement or such persons above the writ petitioners in O.P.No.5818/02 cannot in any way be justified. Therefore, O.P.No.3596/99 is to be dismissed and O.P.No.5818/02 has therefore to be allowed to that extent with necessary direction to fix the seniority on that basis. All the Writ Appeals and Writ Petition except O.P.No.5818/02 and O.P.No.3596/99 are dismissed. O.P.No.5818/02 and O.P.No.31240/01 are allowed to the extent as mentioned above, interfering with Ext.P6/P14 seniority list as mentioned above.