JUDGMENT : P.V. Asha, J. Whether a candidate who has not completed his probation can be considered for appointment as Assistant Engineer in 10% quota set apart for qualified hands in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) is the issue arising in this case. 2. The petitioners are engineering graduates, working as Meter Readers in the Board. They have produced Exts. P1 to P4 orders issued on 25.05.2012, 09.05.2014, 25.03.2013 and 14.07.2014 by which their probation has been declared w.e.f 3.5.2012, 3.5.2012, 21.3.2012 and 2.5.2012 respectively. The date on which they joined the Board as Meter Readers are 3.11.2011, 3.11.2011, 22.09.2011 and 3.11.2011 respectively. In the case of the 4th petitioner, it is stated that he has worked as Junior Accountant in the Treasury Department, prior to his entry as Meter Reader and his probation as Junior Accountant was declared as per Ext. P5 order dated 8.6.2009. 3. By Ext. P6 notification No. 415/2011 dated 29.11.2011 the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) invited applications from among qualified hands working in the Board against the vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the 10% quota. The method of appointment was stated as "appointment by transfer". The candidates were directed to furnish a service certificate in the proforma given in the notification. The last date fixed for receipt of application was 4.1.2012. The petitioners submitted their applications. Their register numbers were included in Ext. P9 shortlist published on 30.12.2015. However their applications were rejected as per Exts. P12 to P15 letters of the PSC on the ground that they were not approved probationers on the last date of receipt of application. This writ petition was filed at that stage challenging Exts. P12 to P15 letters. 4. According to the petitioners, on appointment as Meter Readers by direct recruitment, they are 'full members' and, therefore, they are entitled to be considered for appointment and hence the rejection of their applications is illegal. According to them, an approved probationer as well as a full member of service are entitled to 'appoint by transfer'. 5. 4. According to the petitioners, on appointment as Meter Readers by direct recruitment, they are 'full members' and, therefore, they are entitled to be considered for appointment and hence the rejection of their applications is illegal. According to them, an approved probationer as well as a full member of service are entitled to 'appoint by transfer'. 5. The contention of the respondents PSC as well as the Board and the contesting respondents who got impleaded are that the petitioners who did not complete probation and whose probation were not declared as on the last date for receipt of applications, are not entitled to be considered for appointment and the rejection of their applications is in accordance with law. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the PSC it is stated that even though the petitioners were found qualified in the test held on 15.11.2014, at the time of certificate verification, after publication of the shortlist, it was found that their probation was not even completed as on the date of their applications or the last date fixed for receipt of applications. As probation of the petitioners were not declared as on the last date of receipt of applications, i.e. on or before 4.1.2012, they were excluded from the list and were not called for the interview held from 31.08.2016 to 02.09.2016. According to them, in order to consider the petitioners they should be candidates coming under Rule 2(13) of Part I KSR. 7. According to the additional 3rd respondent, the petitioners whose probation was declared only w.e.f 3.5.2012, 3.5.2012, 21.3.2012 and 2.5.2012 respectively were not eligible for recruitment by transfer. Thus according to the PSC as well as the additional 3rd respondent, a candidate would be eligible for appointment by transfer under the 10% quota only if the candidate's probation was declared. 8. According to the 1st respondent, the appointment of Assistant Engineer is done in the ratio of 4:1:3:2, i.e 40% through PSC from open market, 10% of the total cadre strength from among in-service candidates working in various categories in the Board below the rank of Assistant Engineer who possess B.Tech qualification "through PSC", 30% by promotion of Sub Engineers (Electrical) having Diploma qualification and 20% by promotion of ITI certificate holders. According to it, recruitment to the 40% as well as 10% quota is done through PSC. According to it, recruitment to the 40% as well as 10% quota is done through PSC. It is stated that the period of probation prescribed for the post of Meter Reader is 6 months' duty within a continuous period of one year and accordingly subsequent to the last date fixed for receipt of application, probation of the petitioners was declared w.e.f 3.5.2012 and 2.05.2012. According to the 1st respondent also, the petitioners were eligible for appointment under the 10% quota only if they had satisfactorily completed their probation as on 4.1.2012, the last date for receipt of application. 9. On the basis of the interim orders passed, the petitioners participated in the interview. Ext P17 ranked list was published on 30.12.2016. Thereafter, another order was passed on 06.01.2017 directing the PSC to include the petitioners provisionally on the basis of the marks secured by them, in the rank list and not to make any advice against 4 vacancies. 10. The petitioners seek directions to advise and appoint them. 11. Heard Smt. Seemandini, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Dr. K.P. Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel for the additional 3rd respondent, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC and Smt. Aneetha learned Standing Counsel for the Board. 12. The only question to be decided in this writ petition is the eligibility of the petitioners for appointment under the 10% quota. The Board was following the special rules applicable to Public Health Engineering Service Rules and Subordinate Service Rules in respect of the qualification and method of appointment to the posts in the Engineering wing. Ext.P7 Board Order issued on 13.07.1967 prescribing the method of appointment/qualification for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer, was amended as per Ext.P8 Board Order. According to Ext.P7 Board Order, appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) was to be made by direct recruitment and by promotion. A ratio 5:3:2 was prescribed as per this order between degree holders (direct recruits), diploma holders and certificate holders (promotees). As per Ext.P8 Board order dated 09.12.1970 the qualification and method of appointment were amended. The quota for direct recruitment was apportioned as 40% from among candidates from open market and 10% from qualified hands in the service of the Board. As per Ext.P8 Board order dated 09.12.1970 the qualification and method of appointment were amended. The quota for direct recruitment was apportioned as 40% from among candidates from open market and 10% from qualified hands in the service of the Board. The Board, ordered that "10% of the vacancies of Junior Engineers will be reserved for direct recruitment of the engineering graduates who are in the service of the Board. In case at any time the qualified hands do not become available for direct recruitment to the 10% quota, then the vacancies in this quota will also be filled up by direct recruitment of candidates from the open market. Accordingly, Ext. P7 Board Order were amended as follows: "The last Note in the Annexure to the B.O.No.M. IV- 11552/67 dated 13.7.1967 will be recast and substituted by the following:- NOTE:- (i). Appointment to the post of Junior Engineer will be in the ratio of 5:3:2 as between degree holders (direct recruits) Diploma holders and certificate holders (Promotees). (ii).(a). In making appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer by direct recruitment of degree holders, 40% of the vacancies will be filled up by direct recruitment of candidates from the open market and 10% of the vacancies by direct recruitment of the Engineering Graduates who are in the service of the Board as Overseer, Clerk, etc." Rule (ii).(a). therefore provides that 10% of the vacancies would be filled up by direct recruitment from the Engineering Graduates who were in the service of the Board as Overseer, Clerk, etc. Going by Ext.P8 amendment, it is seen that the method of appointment to 50% of the vacancies are to be made by 'direct recruitment' and out of this 50% set apart for direct recruitment, 10% is earmarked for Engineering Graduates in the service of the Board working as Overseer, Clerk, etc. 13. But Ext. P6 notification is seen issued, as if the method of appointment is "by transfer". When the rules prescribe the method of appointment as direct recruitment from among the Engineering Graduates in the service, the eligibility of the candidate for appointment under 10% quota can only be that he or she should be an Engineering graduate in any of the lower categories in the Board. It would not be necessary that one should be either a probationer or approved probationer or full member. It would not be necessary that one should be either a probationer or approved probationer or full member. In other words, one need not acquire the eligibility for 'appointment by transfer', as defined under Rule 2(13) of Part I of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR for short). There is no dispute over the fact that the relevant rule/Board order governing the method of appointment is Ext.P8 order. I am of the considered view that the notification ought to have been issued inviting applications for appointment by 'direct recruitment' against the 10% quota from among Engineering Graduates working in the board. 14. As arguments were heard at length as to the eligibility of the petitioners for being 'appointed by transfer' and since the notification is one inviting applications for appointment by transfer against the 10% quota and the petitioners claim that they are eligible for 'appointment by transfer', I will consider the pleadings and contentions raised by either side. 15. The definitions of 'appointed to the service', 'recruited direct' and 'recruitment by transfer' in Part I KS&SSR are relevant in this context. "2. (1) A person is said to be "appointed to a service" when in accordance with these rules or in accordance with the rules applicable at the time, as the case may be, he discharges for the first time the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the probation, instruction or training prescribed for members thereof:" 'Recruited direct' is defined under Rule 2 (12) as follows: "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 of appointment. (i) he is not in the service of the Government of India or the Government of a State; or (ii) being in the service of the Government of India or the Government of a State, he satisfies all the qualifications (including age) and other conditions prescribed for such recruitment to that service, class, category or post and is permitted to apply for such recruitment by the competent authority; or (iii) he holds a post, the conditions of service of the holder of which have been declared to be matters not suitable for regulation by rule." Recruitment by transfer is defined under Rule 2(13) as follows: "Recruitment by transfer: (13) A candidate is said to be "recruited by transfer" to a service (i) if his appointment to the service is in accordance with the orders issued or rules prescribed for recruitment by transfer to the service: and (ii) if at the time of his first appointment thereto- (a) he is either a full member or an approved probationer in any other service, the rules for which prescribe a period of probation for members thereof: Provided that, where the Special Rules for a service provide for recruitment by transfer to any class or category thereof from any specified class or category of another service, a candidate shall, unless the recruitment is made from a post carrying an identical scale of pay, be a full member or an approved probationer in the class or category so specified; or (b) he is the holder of a post in any other service for which no probation has been prescribed, and has put in satisfactory service in that post for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years." Member of a service is defined in clause 2 (9) as follows: "Member of a service" means a person who has been appointed to that service and who has not retired or resigned, been removed or dismissed, been substantively transferred or reduced to another service, or been discharged otherwise than for want of a vacancy. He may be a probationer, an approved probationer or a full member of that service." Therefore, a probationer as well as an approved probationer or a full member can be said to be a member of service. He may be a probationer, an approved probationer or a full member of that service." Therefore, a probationer as well as an approved probationer or a full member can be said to be a member of service. Only those members who are approved probationers or full members are eligible for appointment by transfer, as evident from Rule 2(13). Therefore, the next question to be decided is whether the petitioners were either full members or approved probationers. Full member is defined under Rule 2(7) whereas approved probationer is defined in Rule 2(3) as follows: "2(3). Approved probationer in a service, class or category means a member of that service, class or category who has satisfactorily completed his probation and awaits appointment as a full member of such service, class or category." (emphasis supplied) "2(7) Full member of a service means a member of that service who has been appointed substantively to a permanent post borne on the cadre thereof." Therefore, in order to become a full member one should have been appointed substantively to a permanent post borne on the permanent cadre. 16. In order to become an approved probationer, a member of service should have satisfactorily completed his probation and it is that stage when he is awaiting appointment as a full member of such service, class or category, that he can be said to be an approved probationer. In order to become a 'full member' he should be appointed substantively to a permanent post borne on the cadre. In this context Rule 20 of KS&SSR is also relevant. R.20(a) of the Rules read as follows: 20. Rule 20. Probationer's suitability for full membership. - (a) At the end of the prescribed or extended period of probation, as the case may be, the appointing authority shall consider the probationer's suitability for full membership of the service, class or category for which he was selected:" Therefore, a combined reading of the definitions of approved probationer and full member and the provisions contained in Rule 20 would show that one can become a 'full member' only after he becomes an approved probationer. At any rate, they should have completed the prescribed period of probation. 17. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who were directly recruited as Meter Readers, were appointed against substantive posts and therefore, they are full members. At any rate, they should have completed the prescribed period of probation. 17. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who were directly recruited as Meter Readers, were appointed against substantive posts and therefore, they are full members. But going by Rule 5 of Part II KS&SSR direct recruitment is made to substantive vacancies in permanent cadre. That does not say that appointment is made substantively to a 'permanent post'. A substantive vacancy and a substantive post/permanent post are entirely different. It is not necessary that an appointment against a substantive vacancy should be to a permanent post in the cadre, which he can hold. Going by the definition of substantive vacancy in Rule 5 itself it can be seen that any vacancy which is having a duration of more than 3 months is a substantive vacancy. From the details of service furnished by the applicants, it can be seen that the petitioners had not completed the minimum period of probation as on the last date fixed for promotion. 18. Smt. V.P. Seemandini, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioners who were appointed by direct recruitment were holding permanent posts and, therefore, they were full members and hence they are entitled to be considered for appointment by transfer. But the petitioners submitted applications at a time when they had not even completed the prescribed period of probation. As, one attains the status as a full member only after he/she becomes an approved probationer, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. The petitioners were not eligible for appointment by transfer, as on the date of their applications. 19. However, since the method of appointment is admittedly governed by Ext. P8 Board Order, according to which appointment against the 10% quota is by direct recruitment, the petitioners who were qualified hands working in the Board, as on the dates of their applications, they are entitled to be considered for appointment under the 10% quota and hence their applications are liable to be accepted. 20. In Ext. P16 judgment this court considered a case relating to appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Town Planning Officers under the 10% quota for the members of the Kerala Local Self Government Engineering Subordinate Service to be filled up by direct recruitment. 20. In Ext. P16 judgment this court considered a case relating to appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Town Planning Officers under the 10% quota for the members of the Kerala Local Self Government Engineering Subordinate Service to be filled up by direct recruitment. The notification insisted for a service certificate in which it should be shown that the candidate is a full member/approved probationer of the engineering service. In that case it was found that even probationers in the Department were eligible to be considered for the selection as per rules. In this case also, the method of appointment is by direct recruitment. 21. Going by the Board Order Ext. P8, any qualified hand appointed to the service of the Board is eligible to be considered for appointment in accordance with Ext. P8 order against the 10% quota. This would include even probationers. Therefore, according to me, the method of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers is by direct recruitment, going by Ext. P8 order and as held in Ext. P16 judgment, it is not necessary to insist that they should be either approved probationers or full members. 22. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following declarations and directions: (i) it is declared that the petitioners are entitled to be considered in the 10% quota set apart for Engineering Graduates in the service of the Board for appointment as Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers in accordance with Ext. P8 Board Order and hence the rejection of their applications as per Exts. P12 to P15 letters by the PSC is unsustainable; (ii) therefore, Exts.P12 to P15 are quashed; (iii) the interim order passed on 6.1.2017 to the extent it directed that the names of petitioners shall be included in the rank list at the appropriate place in Ext.P17 ranked list in accordance with the marks secured by them is made absolute; (iv) as the interim order was passed well before any advice was made from the rank list, the petitioners shall be treated to have been advised with effect from the date of advice of candidates ranked lower to them in their respective turns.