JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The bone of contention, in a manner of speaking, in this Writ Petition is as to the entitlement of the petitioners to be appointed to the post of Overseer Grade III in the service of the Kerala Water Resources Department. While the petitioners, on one hand, asserts that they are entitled to be appointed, the party respondents 3 to 12 contend otherwise. 2. The petitioners state that they were originally appointed as Overseer Grade III by an order dated 24.12.2015, invoking the provisions of the Special Rules. The appointment given to them was by transfer to the post of Overseer Grade III under the provisions of Rule 2 (5) of the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules 1958 [herein after referred to as the Rules]. It is conceded before us by the parties on either side that these Rules are applicable to the Kerala Water Resources Department also, by incorporation or adoption. 3. Broadly, the Rules provide for 12 categories of posts, out of which, the post of Third Grade Overseers is included as category No. 5. The method of appointment to this post, as is discernible from Rule 2(5) of Rules, is either by direct recruitment or by promotion from category No. 7, which are called Blue Printers. The said Rule further prescribes that in the absence of qualified Blue Printers, Attenders in the Department can be appointed by transfer under the promotion quota. The Note to this Rule stipulates that a ratio of 3:1 be maintained between direct recruitment and promotion. 4. The petitioners assert that in the year 2015, there were several vacancies in the post of Third Grade Overseers and that sufficient number of Blue Printers, qualified to hold such post, was not available for being promoted under the mandate of the aforementioned Rule. They avouch that it was in such circumstances that they were appointed by transfer, which is also one of the methods of appointment, to which we have adverted above. 5. The petitioners say that they were appointed by an order dated 04.12.2015 and that along with them four other Blue Printers were also promoted. They avouch that it was in such circumstances that they were appointed by transfer, which is also one of the methods of appointment, to which we have adverted above. 5. The petitioners say that they were appointed by an order dated 04.12.2015 and that along with them four other Blue Printers were also promoted. We notice from the impugned order that a total of 24 persons were appointed in the year 2015 as Third Grade Overseers, out of which 11 were Office Attenders, 2 were Watchmen, 7 were Lascars and one was a Night Watchman along with four other Blue Printers. As per Annexure A1 order, which is impugned in this proceedings, the appointments given to the Office Attenders, Watchman, Lascars and Night Watchman; some of whom are the petitioners before us, were sought to be cancelled, on the ground that their initial appointment to the post of Third Grade Overseer was contrary to the Special Rules. The order further says that since there were vacancies in the post of Tracers [which is a post equivalent to the Third Grade Overseers] the appointment of the four Blue Printers were allowed to stand. It is this order that was challenged by the petitioners herein before the learned Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by filing O.A. No. 375 of 2017. 6. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the materials and pleadings on record, concluded that Annexure A1 order is not vitiated in any manner and that the petitioners are not, as per the mandate of the Special Rules, entitled to be appointed or to continue in the post of Third Grade Overseer and, therefore, that the challenge against the order cannot be allowed to sustain. On such reasoning, the learned Tribunal, dismissed the O.A. by its order dated 06.10.17, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext. P1. 7. The petitioners impugn Ext.P1 on various grounds, primarily, on the contention that it has been issued without proper application of mind, in a mechanical faction, and that it violates the principles of natural justice, since they were neither heard nor afforded an opportunity of being heard before the decision therein was taken to cancel their appointment as Third Grade Overseer and revert them. 8. We have heard the learned senior counsel Dr. K.P. Satheesan assisted by Sri. 8. We have heard the learned senior counsel Dr. K.P. Satheesan assisted by Sri. A.K. Gopalan the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2; Sri. K. T. Syamkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7 and Sri. V. Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 8 to 12. 9. We have intently considered the legitimacy and sustainability of Annexure A1 order, dated 09.02.2017, which was impugned before the learned Tribunal by the petitioners in the O.A. As is clear from the phraseology employed therein, the appointment of the petitioners have been set aside, merely saying that their initial appointment in the year 2015 was irregular and contrary to the provisions of the General Rules. It is ineluctable from the said order that the petitioners were neither heard nor given an opportunity of setting forth their version against the action to revert them before that order was issued. 10. The Rules, applicable to the Service, provides for promotion to the post of the Third Grade Overseer, as we have already seen above, through two methods, namely direct recruitment and promotion from Blue Printers. It is only in the absence of eligible and qualified Blue Printers that others in the category of Attenders can be appointed by transfer. We notice the specific assertion of the petitioners that they are qualified to be reckoned as Attenders in view of Annexure A4 Government Order, relating to the various subordinate posts in Public and Government services. As per Annexure A4, those persons who were working as Last Grade Servants and are in possession of SSLC or equivalent qualification and have put in a minimum service of three years in the Government Department as Last Grade Servants are not required to pass the Attenders' test. The petitioners contend that all of them are qualified to be Attenders under this criterion and, therefore, that under the mandate of Annexure A4, they are eligible to be treated and construed as Attenders in the department. Dr. Satheesan, learned senior counsel adds to this contention by stating that all of the petitioners have already been granted 1st time bound higher grade, which according to him, is equivalent to the scale of pay of Attenders and therefore, that they should be construed as being Attenders for this reason also. 11. Dr. Satheesan, learned senior counsel adds to this contention by stating that all of the petitioners have already been granted 1st time bound higher grade, which according to him, is equivalent to the scale of pay of Attenders and therefore, that they should be construed as being Attenders for this reason also. 11. Further, in explanation of his submission that there were not enough qualified Blue Printers available for being promoted the learned senior counsel Sri. Dr. K.P. Satheesan refers to Annexure II Section (B) sub clause (iii) of the Rules to point out that a Blue Printer will be entitled to be promoted as a Third Grade Overseer only if he possess a certificate in Engineering. According to him, it is not sufficient that there were Blue Printers available in service but that it was incumbent that they were so qualified under the provisions of aforementioned sub Clause of Annexure II. He further says that had the petitioners been given an opportunity of explaining their case before Annexure A1 order was issued, they would have been able to impress upon the competent authorities that their appointments were legal and that their reversions were unnecessary. 12. The singular case shown by Dr. K.P. Satheesan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, in effect, is that the petitioners, who were working as Last Grade Employees, are entitled to be treated and construed as Attenders in the Department, under the prescriptions of Annexure A4 Government Order and therefore, that in the year 2015, when they were no sufficient Blue Printers, qualified to hold the post of Third Grade Overseers, the petitioners were axiomatically entitled to be considered for such appointment by transfer, since the mandate of the Rules is specifically to that effect. According to him, as long as Annexure A1 does not challenge or contest any of these criterion, it was completely impermissible for the authorities to have ordered the petitioners' reversion merely holding that their initial appointment was irregular. He further states that it may be true that in Annexure A1 it is stated that there are no posts of Attenders in the Water Resources Department but then adds that the issue is not whether there is such a post in the department, but whether the petitioners can be construed and treated to be Attenders, going by the applicable Orders, Rules and Regulations. 13. Sri. 13. Sri. Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 8 to 12 says that his clients are candidates who are eligible for direct recruitment to the post of Overseer Grade III. According to him, the appointment of the petitioners in the year 2015 was against the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment and, therefore, that the authorities are justified in cancelling their appointment 14. Sri. K.T. Syam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7, who are Blue Printers in the service of the Department, contend that as long as there were qualified Blue Printers in service, the petitioners could not have been appointed by transfer to the post of Third Grade Overseer, since as per Rule 2 (5) of the Rules, it is only in the absence of the qualified Blue Printers can the petitioners aspire to be so posted. 15. We have considered all the above submissions made by the learned senior counsel and various counsel appearing for the parities. 16. It is evident from whatever we have recorded above that Annexure A1 has been issued without taking into account any of the above contentions of either of the sides or the other relevant factual factors. It has sought to revert the petitioners and cancel their appointment merely by saying that their initial appointment in the year 2015 was irregular and against the special Rules, without stating that as to how it is so and how the appointment was illegal. Going by the submissions of Dr. Satheesan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is obvious that they claim, on the assertion that they are entitled to be treated as Attenders and that there were not enough qualified hands among the Blue Printers for being appointed to the post of Third Grade Overseers, that they were entitled to be appointed to such post by transfer. 17. We find some force in the submissions of Dr. Satheesan because, concededly, the order impugned, namely Anenxure A1, has been issued without hearing the petitioners or without affording them an opportunity of being heard. 17. We find some force in the submissions of Dr. Satheesan because, concededly, the order impugned, namely Anenxure A1, has been issued without hearing the petitioners or without affording them an opportunity of being heard. Even assuming that the original appointment given to them in the year 2015 is irregular and illegal, it is only in the fairness of things and in adherence to the principles of natural justice, that a proper proceedings ought to have been initiated, with an opportunity of being heard afforded to the petitioners to place their version on record, before any action to cancel such appointment or to revert them pursued and concluded. In the absence of such forensically requisite course being adopted by the Authorities, Annexure A1 order will certainly have to be found vitiated on that ground solely. 18. Even though the impugned order thus would obtain no legal sanction, we deem it appropriate, because we have already taken into account the factual factors as recorded above, to also record a word as to why we think that Annexure A1 requires reconsideration on the merits of the matter also. 19. As we have already indicated above, the petitioners case is that they are qualified to be Attenders and that they are entitled to be appointed by transfer to the post of Third Grade overseers since there were no suitable qualified Blue Printers in the year 2015. There are two questions of facts that are involved in the submissions, which would normally have required the attention and consideration by the competent Authorities, before Annexure A1 was issued. The first being whether the petitioners can be treated or construed as being Attenders as per Annexure A4 Government Order; and the second that even if they are so eligible, whether they were other qualified Blue Printers in the service of the department in the year 2015, when the petitioners were appointed. It is only if these two criterion are considered and found against the petitioners that their reversion normally could have been set aside. 20. As regards the claim of the respondents 8 to 12 are concerned, they are aspirants under the direct recruitment quota and as far as respondents 3 to 7 are concerned, they are Blue Printers in the service of the department. 20. As regards the claim of the respondents 8 to 12 are concerned, they are aspirants under the direct recruitment quota and as far as respondents 3 to 7 are concerned, they are Blue Printers in the service of the department. We sure that their interests will never be prejudiced or impeded in any manner if the Authorities were to reconsider the case of the petitioners' appointment in terms of law, because respondents 8 to 12 are certainly entitled to aspire for all the posts that are available to them under the 75% quota set apart for direct recruitment under the Rules, and as far as respondents 3 to 7 are concerned, they would be entitled to be appointed to the vacancies in the year 2015, provided, they are able to show that they were qualified under the Special Rules for being promoted into the then available vacancies of Overseer Grade III. 21. In the result, we are of the firm view that it will be in the requirements of justice and also in the interest of the parties concerned that Annexure A1 is set aside, so as to pave way for a fresh consideration at the hands of the competent Authority as to the validity of the appointment of the petitioners as Overseer Grade III, as was done through the Government Order No. A6-18000/2015 dated 04.12.2015, after considering the all the contentions of the petitioners and of the respondents. 22. We, thus, vacate the order of the learned Tribunal namely, Ext.P1, in O.A. No. 375 of 2017 dated 06.10.2017 and consequentially set aside Anenxure A1 order and direct the second respondent - Chief Engineer to reconsider the validity and necessity of cancellation of the appointment and reversion of the petitioners, in terms of law, after taking into account all the contentions of the petitioners and also that of the respondents 3 to 12, by affording them suitable opportunity of being heard and thereafter to issue a fresh order, either confirming the appointment of the petitioners or cancelling it, implicitly adhering to the provisions of the Special Rules and the applicable Government Orders. This exercise shall be completed by the Chief Engineer/second respondent, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 23. This exercise shall be completed by the Chief Engineer/second respondent, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 23. Needless to say, if after such an exercise it is found any among the respondents 3 to 7, who are presently working as Blue Printers, were qualified and eligible for being appointed as Overseer Grade III in the year 2015, necessarily such number of petitioners, if required, can be reverted to accommodate them. Similarly, if it is found by the Chief Engineer that the appointment of the petitioners has, in any manner violated the imperative ratio between direct recruitment and promotion/transfer, to be maintained while making appointment to the post of Third Grade Overseer, again, he would be entitled to issue orders reverting such number of petitioners as would be necessary to maintain such ratio. 24. This Original Petition is thus ordered.