JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are Assistant Engineers working in the KSEB. They had entered service of the Board as Sub Engineers and had acquired Degree in Engineering while in service. The method of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer as per 1981 settlement was in the ratio of 5:3:2 between Degree, Diploma and Certificate holders. The Degree holders are directly recruited from open market, Diploma and Certificate holders are promoted from a feeder category. Out of 50% meant for direct recruitment, 10% of the vacancies are reserved for Board employees possessing the requisite qualification based on length of service. Thus, the petitioners became eligible for appointment as Assistant Engineers under 10% quota meant for Board employees. 2. By Exhibit P1 circular dated 19.10.2001, applications were invited from in-service candidates having Engineering Degree for appointment against the 10% quota. The employees, including the petitioners, applied and Exhibit P2 list dated 30.04.2002 was published. Later, on 01.06.2002 another circular was issued and Exhibit P3 list of 37 Graduate Engineers fit for appointment as Assistant Engineers was published. By Exhibit P4 circular dated 10.06.2002, the name of one more eligible candidate was included. However, no appointments were made. 3. By Exhibit P5 judgment dated 16.01.2003, this Court directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on a representation preferred by the persons included in the lists for promotion. However, by Exhibit P6 order, the Board stated that the Government had directed that recruitment in the 10% quota for in-service candidates should also be through PSC and the Board had issued consequential orders on 30.05.2003. This decision was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C).No.22628 of 2003 and by Exhibit P8 interim order dated 30.5.2003 it is directed that the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) should not be filled up by outsiders on contract basis or H.R. basis. Thereafter, by Exhibit P9 proceedings dated 15.06.2004, 61 employees, including the petitioners and the contesting respondents, were promoted as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on a purely provisional basis. By Exhibit P10 judgment dated 21.06.2005, the writ petition was disposed of holding that the decision of the Board to make appointments in the 10% quota through PSC would only be prospective in operation and that the 10% vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) which arose on or before 31.01.2005 are to be filled up in accordance with the orders which were in force at that time. It was held that persons included in Exhibits P3 and P4 select lists shall be considered eligible and qualified for appointment against the 10% quota up to 31.01.2005. Therefore, the persons appointed from the select list provisionally as Assistant Engineer were held to be entitled for regularisation. Though a writ appeal was attempted against Exhibit P10, the same was also dismissed. A review petition was filed against Exhibit P11 judgment and the writ appeal was heard again. After hearing the contentions of the parties at length, the appeal was again dismissed and the writ petitions preferred by contesting respondents seeking regularisation of their provisional promotions were also allowed. 4. By Exhibit P15 proceedings dated 05.11.2007, orders of regularisation under the 10% quota were issued and a list was appended thereto showing the names of 66 candidates. An interlocutory application led to reopen Contempt of Court Case filed alleging non compliance of Exhibit P10 judgment was closed, recording the submission that Exhibit P17 orders of regularisation have been issued and that orders will be passed by the Board within a period of three months assigning the petitioners and others who have been promoted by Exhibit P15, the date of effect of their promotion as Assistant Engineer. Pursuant to this undertaking, Exhibit P18 proceedings assigning seniority to persons included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists and petitioners in W.P.C Nos.22628/2003, 33421/2007, 3726/2005 and 33749/2005 w.e.f. 15.06.2004 were issued. 5. Exhibit P18 contained a list of 66 persons including the petitioners and the contesting respondents herein. The petitioners who had been included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists were ranked above the contesting respondents, who had been promoted provisionally on 15.06.2004 and were found to be eligible for regularisation only on account of the judgment of the Division Bench allowing their writ petitions. The rest of the persons who were provisionally promoted as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) were included in Annexure B list appended to Exhibit P18 order and were reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibit P18 order determined the seniority of the persons who were entitled to regularisation w.e.f. 15.06.2004. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibit P18 order determined the seniority of the persons who were entitled to regularisation w.e.f. 15.06.2004. It is contended that the seniority as between the persons who were appointed as per Exhibits P3 and P4 lists and the persons appointed on a provisional basis on 15.06.2004 without reference to the said list and without conducting a selection as prescribed in the rules in force stood settled by Exhibit P8 proceedings and the list appended thereto. It is stated that the persons who acquired qualifications after Exhibits P3 and P4 lists were issued and who had been accommodated in existing vacancies after the lists were exhausted were shown below the petitioners in the list appended to Exhibit P18 order. No challenge had been raised from any quarters as against Exhibit P18 and the said list had become final. However, after more than eight years, it is submitted that Exhibit P19 proceedings dated 6.1.2016 were issued by the Board. It is stated in Exhibit P19 that Exhibit P18 order was issued without assigning seniority and that by judgment dated 17.06.2009, this court had directed that vacancies which existed up to 31.01.2005 should be filled up in accordance with the rules then in force, observing strict seniority by inviting fresh applications. It is stated that against the order in R.P.No.902 of 2008, SLPs are filed which are pending. Exhibit P19 further goes on to state that since seniority of candidates in the order dated 17.09.2008 had not been assigned, their gradation list is prepared on the basis of length of service as stipulated in Board order dated 12.02.1999, conditionally, subject to judgment in the SLPs which were pending before the Apex Court. In the list appended to Exhibit P19 several of the petitioners' juniors are assigned seniority over them. This list is under challenge. 7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Exhibit P19 re-assignment of seniority amounts to the revision of the settled seniority of the petitioners which had become final by Exhibit P18 proceedings without any justification whatsoever. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Exhibit P19 re-assignment of seniority amounts to the revision of the settled seniority of the petitioners which had become final by Exhibit P18 proceedings without any justification whatsoever. It is contended that the re-assignment of seniority as contained in Exhibit P19 violates the specific findings contained in Exhibit P10 judgment of the learned single Judge which was confirmed in appeal by Exhibit P13. It is further contended that the order in R.P.No.902 of 2008 referred to in Exhibit P19, which is produced as Exhibit P20, specifically held that persons like the contesting respondents who did not find a place in Exhibits P2 and P3 lists had been appointed pursuant to a notification calling for applications for temporary appointments and that they are not entitled to regularisation. It therefore follows that only persons who were included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists and had been granted provisional promotions on 15.6.2004 would be entitled to regularisation. It is this order in R.P. which has been taken up in SLP before the Apex Court. Exhibit P13 judgment by which the claim of persons like the petitioners who were included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists and who were subsequently provisionally appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) to regularisation has become final. In the above circumstances, and in view of the fact that Exhibit P18 proceedings had been issued in purported compliance of the directions contained in Exhibit P13 judgment, there was no justification whatsoever for unsettling the seniority of the petitioner which stood settled by Exhibit P18 proceedings. It is submitted that the very right of the contesting respondents for regularisation and inclusion in the list appended to Exhibit P18 has been found against in Exhibit P20 order in a review by a Division Bench of this Court. In the above view of the matter they would not be entitled to regularisation in service w.e.f. 15.06.2004, much less to re-assignment of their seniority over the petitioners, it is contended. 9. In the above view of the matter they would not be entitled to regularisation in service w.e.f. 15.06.2004, much less to re-assignment of their seniority over the petitioners, it is contended. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would contend that the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents had been appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) pursuant to Exhibit P9 proceedings dated 15.06.2004, it is submitted that since they are all persons who had been granted only provisional promotions and since this Court by Exhibits P10 and P13 judgments had declared that the posts existing as on 31.01.2005 have to be filled up in accordance with the rules in force before the Board decided to fill up 10% of vacancies through PSC, the seniority of those 66 persons entitled to regularisation w.e.f. 15.06.2004 had to be re-worked on the basis of the rules in force, taking note of the length of service as well as the date of acquisition of qualification. It is further contended that Exhibit P18 was not a seniority list at all and was only appended to a proceedings to show the number of persons who would be entitled to regularisation. This contention is adopted by the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB as well. 10. I have considered the contentions advanced on all sides at considerable length with reference to the pleadings and the documents relied on by the petitioners. 11. The petitioners are persons who were included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists which were prepared for appointment as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the 10% quota set apart for in-service candidates in accordance with the rules in force at the time. After the lists were prepared, the board decided that appointment in the 10% quota should also be through selection conducted by the PSC. By Exhibit P10 judgment rendered in a writ petition filed by persons included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists, a learned single Judge held that vacancies arising on or before 31.01.2005 are to be filled up from Exhibits P3 and P4 list. In the meanwhile, all the persons, who were in active service and whose names were included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists as well as certain other persons who had acquired the Degree qualifications later, had been given provisional promotion as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the vacancies available in the 10% quota. In the meanwhile, all the persons, who were in active service and whose names were included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists as well as certain other persons who had acquired the Degree qualifications later, had been given provisional promotion as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the vacancies available in the 10% quota. The appeal preferred by the board against Exhibit P10 judgment was dismissed by Exhibit P13 judgment dated 21.06.2007. At the time of consideration of the appeal, W.P.(C).Nos.33726 and 33749 of 2005 filed by the persons like the contesting respondents, who had also been appointed on a provisional basis as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 15.06.2004, but who were not included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists, also were considered along with the writ appeal. These writ petitions were allowed. However, in review petitions filed by other persons seeking regularisation, while leaving the judgment in the writ appeal intact, the judgment in the writ petitions were reviewed and recalled and it was held that persons who were not included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists would have to undergo fresh selection procedure and would not have been entitled to regularisation w.e.f. 15.06.2004. This is the order which was under challenge before the Apex Court. The findings in Exhibit P10 judgment of the learned single Judge in favour of the petitioners herein as well as the confirmation of the same in W.A.No.2564 of 2005 have become final. 12. In the above view of the matter, the finding that the petitioners who were included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists pursuant to a selection conducted by the Board for regular appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) were entitled to regularisation w.e.f. 15.06.2004 stands concluded. The claims of the contesting respondents for such regularisation, on the other hand, is still subject to final orders in the SLPs preferred by them against Exhibit P20 judgment. By Exhibit P20, a Division Bench of this Court found that the contesting respondents would not be entitled to such regularisation, since they had not undergone a due selection procedure for regular appointment. By Exhibit P20, a Division Bench of this Court found that the contesting respondents would not be entitled to such regularisation, since they had not undergone a due selection procedure for regular appointment. In the above view of the matter, I fail to fathom the rationale behind the decision of the Board to review Exhibit P18 list prepared in the year 2008, to assign seniority to the contesting respondents whose right to regularisation on 15.06.2004 itself has not been established, in preference to the petitioner's whose right for such regulsarisation has become final by Exhibit P13 judgment. The pleadings placed on record by the Board contains no plausible explanation whatsoever for their whimsical acts. 13. On a careful consideration of pleadings and the contentions raised, I am of the considered opinion that no reason informed the revision of seniority by Exhibit P19 proceedings after eight long years, that too at a time when the regularisation of the contesting respondents itself hangs fire. This is more so in view of the fact that Exhibit P18 was issued by the respondents in purported compliance of the orders of this Court dated 30.11.2007 allowing retrospective effect of regularisation in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and providing consequential benefits as directed by this Court. I declare that the petitioners who were included in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists after undergoing a process of selection as envisaged by the orders in force for regular appointment as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) are entitled to seniority over the contesting respondents and persons like them, who were not included in the said lists and who had been appointed only on provisional basis to fill up the vacancies in existence at the relevant time. Exhibit P19 is, therefore, quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to rank and seniority by virtue of their inclusion in Exhibits P3 and P4 lists and on the basis of declaration of law as contained in Exhibit P10 judgment and confirmed in Exhibit P13. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.