JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned standing counsel for the Corporation. 2. Petitioners are conductors in the service of the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The procedure for appointment in the Corporation is by way of selection and advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission and under the dying in harness scheme. Almost all the employees of the Corporation are appointed usually through KPSC. Petitioners were included in the rank list published by the Commission on 18.5.1992. Since KSRTC did not make any appointment from the rank list and appointed some temporary hands, a batch of writ petitions were filed in this Court. By judgment dated 23.2.1996 in KPSC Reserve Conductors Association and others v. State (1996 (2) KLT 306) this Court allowed the writ petitions and directed that those petitioners who have been included in the select list of the PSC would be appointed and the petition filed by several petitioners who were appointed on ad-hoc basis for regularization in service were dismissed. The contesting respondents were appointed under the dying-in-harness scheme floated by the State Government in the year 1986 as per the advice list of 1991 against substantive vacancies. Admittedly, petitioners were appointed under the Corporation as empanelled conductors due to poor financial condition of the Corporation so as to accommodate them as permanent hands and hence they had no choice than to accept the temporary appointments. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since, admittedly, the contesting respondents were appointed after the recruitment of the petitioners in a permanent post, their seniority should be counted from the date of advice and the respondents' seniority should be counted from the date of regularization to a substantive post and not from the date of their initial engagement. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the settled principle of law is that this Court has deprecated the procedure of ad-hoc appointment, particularly when, there exists PSC rank list. Therefore, any appointment provided to them under the dying in harness or any other mode of selection by way of ad-hoc basis cannot be considered for assigning seniority. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the appointment of contesting respondents was made under the dying-in-harness scheme. Therefore, any appointment provided to them under the dying in harness or any other mode of selection by way of ad-hoc basis cannot be considered for assigning seniority. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the appointment of contesting respondents was made under the dying-in-harness scheme. The Corporation had adopted the Rules framed by the Government of Kerala in this regard and it was under the scheme for compassionate appointment that these respondents were appointed. The compassionate appointment scheme, which was framed by the Government of Kerala and which was in force at the time of appointment of contesting respondents herein, is contained in G.O.(P)No.34/87/P & ARD dated 17.12.1987. The object of the scheme is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee. 5. Learned counsel for the KSRTC submits that the appointment of the contesting respondents were made on temporary basis under the dying-in-harness scheme as there was paucity of funds. Though the petitioners were included in the rank list of 18.5.1992, apparently they were issued with the advice memos only in 1996 and appointed in 1997. Therefore, considering that the petitioners were earlier appointed to a substantive vacancy, the Corporation prepared a seniority list on 8.8.1997. But the respondents deprecated the genuineness of the list and, as matters stood thus, the Corporation found it prudent to revise the seniority list prepared in 1997 referred to above and the Corporation decided to prepare a fresh select list in the year 2006. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of appointment was passed in favour of them in the year 1996. Therefore, they could not have been assigned seniority prior to the date. The second submission of the petitioners is that the seniority which was assigned to the petitioners as back as 1996 cannot be changed at a later date by a subsequent order of the Corporation. The third submission of the petitioners is that the petitioners' case is governed by the 2nd proviso to Rule 27 of Part II KS & SSR. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 27, provisional appointees should not be given any weightage whatsoever for the purpose of assigning seniority. 7. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 27, provisional appointees should not be given any weightage whatsoever for the purpose of assigning seniority. 7. Learned counsel for the Corporation Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha submits that even though petitioners were selected by the Corporation as early as in 1992, due to financial stringency they could not be appointed at that time. They were appointed on temporary basis because of the paucity of funds with the Corporation. Only when the financial condition of the Corporation improved, their services could be regularized with effect from the date of their initial appointment. They were also not paid the back wages for the aforesaid period due to financial stringency of the Corporation which the petitioners have accepted. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation has adopted two methods of recruitment, one is by recruiting through PSC and another based on 1987 Government circular. Therefore, there is no difference between the employees appointed under compassionate appointment and employees appointed on the advice of the PSC. Since both the petitioners and contesting respondents were appointed under different schemes of the Government, one cannot claim superiority over the other in the matter of appointment. 8. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the initial date of appointment of the petitioners can be counted for the purpose of counting seniority vis-a-vis the candidates who have been appointed under 1987 circular. 9. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions on the decisions reported in KPSC Reserve Conductors Association and others v. State (1996 (2) KLT 306), Althaf v. State of Kerala (2003 (2) K.L.T. 342) and Shanmugham v. Kerala Water Authority (2004 (2) KLT 529). 10. Rule 9 of the Rules deals with temporary appointments. When there I s delay in making appointments in accordance with the Rules and special rules, the appointing authority may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the said rules temporarily. Rule 27 deals with reckoning seniority and as per Clause (a) seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. Rule 27 deals with reckoning seniority and as per Clause (a) seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. As per Clause (b) seniority shall be determined if the persons who join duty belong to the same category of post in the same department in accordance with their seniority in the unit or department from which they were transferred. Clause (c) mandates that notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b), the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined based on the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class, category or grade and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are arranged in the advice list. The second proviso stipulates that seniority of a person appointed on the advice of the Commission under the normal method and a relative or dependent of a Government servant died in harness appointed under the special scheme, then seniority in the case of the first method shall be treated as senior to the latter. 11. The respondents submits that when they joined service in 1991-92, the petitioners were not born in service. They rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh (2011 (1) K.L.T. S.N.82 - C.No.112 - SC). They also relied upon the judgment reported in Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2006 (3) K.L.T. 103 (F.B). They drew the attention to a judgment reported in Sreejith P.S. v. Principal & Controlling Officers (2008 (4) KHC 425). They also pointed out that Ext.P7 impugned order in W.P.(C)No.28702/2006 affect the interest of mechanical staff as well as garage mazdoors. These categories should have been brought in the party array. But, that was not done.2.In the instant case, the petitioners were selected by the Corporation as early as in 1992 and advised in 1996. They were appointed only subsequently due to paucity of funds with the Corporation in 1997. These categories should have been brought in the party array. But, that was not done.2.In the instant case, the petitioners were selected by the Corporation as early as in 1992 and advised in 1996. They were appointed only subsequently due to paucity of funds with the Corporation in 1997. The respondents were selected in 1991. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a person appointed on normal method has to be given more weightage than the persons appointed under the dying in harness scheme cannot be accepted. The Rule mandates that it is not the date of regularization in service but the initial date of appointment of persons appointed under the dying in harness scheme has to be counted for the purpose of seniority as against the persons appointed on the advice of the Commission. Public Service Commission candidates get seniority from the date of effective advice, i.e. from 1996 only. Therefore, I hold that the initial date of appointment of contesting respondents and not their date of regularization should be accepted for the purpose of counting seniority. I find no merit in these writ petitions. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.