JUDGMENT : Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. 1. A Trade Union, represented by its General Secretary, filed this Writ Petition; it sought a Writ of quo warranto against P.R. Suresh, the 5th respondent, who has been appointed the Managing Director of the 4th respondent Corporation. The Trade Union primarily contends that Suresh lacks the qualification to be appointed Managing Director. 2. When the Writ Petition was pending, the Government came up with an amendment through G.O. (Ms) No. 18/2018/F&WLD, dated 11.04.2018, modifying the qualifications required for the post of Managing Director (IFS). It also, incidentally, modified the qualification of another post: General Manager (IFS). 3. Initially on 11.04.2018, we passed an interim order and later extended it on 13.04.2018, restraining Suresh from discharging the duties of Managing Director. 4. Now, having taken up the matter for disposal, we heard Sri. S. Shanavas Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Trade Union, Sri. Ranjith Thampan, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Sri. Kabani Dinesh M. the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, as well as Sri. T.R. Harikumar, the learned Counsel for the 5th respondent. 5. Sri. Shanavas Khan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Trade Union, has strenuously contended that under the un-amended rules of recruitment, Suresh had not been qualified; and even the State and the Corporation have no quarrel about it. Further, by drawing our attention to the amended rule, Sri. Khan has further contended that, though the Managing Director and the General Manager of the Corporation could have the same qualification that is, the rank of Deputy Conservator of Forest—the person to be appointed Managing Director ought to be senior in the rank to the person to be appointed General Manager. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the Civil List of Indian Forest Service, which, at page 3, has listed the Levels in the Pay Matrix of the IFS officers. 6. Sri. Khan has frontally attacked, what he calls, the shifting stand of the State and the Corporation. He contended that a person to be appointed Managing Director ought to have been senior in rank. Sri. Khan elaborated on what is meant by senior in rank. According to him, the seniority in the same rank must be determined, at least, by the grade of pay. He contended that a person to be appointed Managing Director ought to have been senior in rank. Sri. Khan elaborated on what is meant by senior in rank. According to him, the seniority in the same rank must be determined, at least, by the grade of pay. In other words, the senior in the same rank must be drawing salary at a higher level of pay: here, IFS officers’ levels of pay show that level 11 belongs to the entry cadre and level 12 to the next level. In sum, Sri. Khan asserts that Suresh cannot be treated as a senior in rank unless he is drawing salary, at least, above the entry level: Level 11. 7. In the end, the learned counsel has urged us to allow the Writ Petition on the premise that even under the amended rules of appointment, Suresh remains unqualified. 8. Per contra, Sri. Ranjith Thampan, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that pending the Writ Petition, the Government has amended the rules of recruitment and those amended rules alone should be looked into at this stage. In addition, he has also submitted that for the past many years, the post of General Manager has been vacant and, at this stage, it cannot be presumed that the Government or the Corporation will appoint any person, either of equivalent rank or senior to Suresh, as the General Manager. 9. As the very appointment of General Manager is hypothetical, we can only now examine, contends Sri. Thampan, whether Suresh qualifies himself—whether he fulfills the eligibility criteria. To further his submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted that the State, in its counter affidavit, has elaborately countered all the allegations made by the Trade Union. And in paragraph 5, it has enlisted the officers in the Rank of IFS, junior to Suresh. 10. According to Sri. Thampan, there are, by now, 11 officers junior to Suresh. Therefore, Suresh’s appointment, he maintains, cannot be found fault with, especially in the light of the amended rules of recruitment. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the counsel for Suresh have adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General. Discussion: 12. Though the Writ Petition seems to be pro bono publico, the issue seems to run in a narrow compass. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the counsel for Suresh have adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General. Discussion: 12. Though the Writ Petition seems to be pro bono publico, the issue seems to run in a narrow compass. All that we are called upon is to decide whether Suresh is qualified, especially, under the amended rules of recruitment, dated 11.04.2018. 13. Without much reference to the eligibility criteria under which initially Suresh had been appointed, we may confine our discussion to the amended rules, which supersede the old ones, and see whether Suresh has been qualified. 14. Annexure I of G.O. (Ms) No. 18/2018/F7WLD, dated 11.04.2018, issued under Rule 6 of the Service Rules of the Kerala Forest Development Corporation Limited, contains the amended Rule. To get appointed as the M.D. the candidate must be an officer “of and above the rank of Deputy Conservator of Forest who is senior in rank to the General Manager.” On the other hand, to get appointed as General Manager (IFS), the candidate must be of and above the rank of Deputy Conservator of Forest “who is junior in rank to the Managing Director.” 15. Plainly read, the amended Rule reveals that the post of Managing Director and that of General Manager have the same threshold qualification of and above the rank of Deputy Conservator of Forest. Nevertheless, for the post of Managing Director, the person to be appointed must be senior in rank to the person to be appointed General Manager. 16. The bone of contention, therefore, as pointed out by Sri. Shanavas Khan, is the rank. Then, how do we determine the seniority in the same rank? Should it be based on temporal seniority or based on scale of pay? As seen from the Civil List, the entry rank of senior scale begins at Level 11 and somebody to be placed at the next level—Junior Administrative Grade, that is Level 12—he or she must have completed 9 years’ service at Level 11. Here, it is not disputed that Suresh has the entry in service at Level 11 only and still remains there. 17. But, attractive as Mr. Khan’s submission is, we fail to persuade ourselves to accept it. The amended rule, plainly read, only indicates that the seniority is relative. Here, it is not disputed that Suresh has the entry in service at Level 11 only and still remains there. 17. But, attractive as Mr. Khan’s submission is, we fail to persuade ourselves to accept it. The amended rule, plainly read, only indicates that the seniority is relative. The person to be appointed as Managing Director must be senior to the one to be appointed as General Manager; they both can be from the same rank Deputy Conservator of Forest. We reckon that the relative seniority “in the rank”—and certainly not “by the rank”—will imply temporal seniority in the same rank. In other words, if two persons function as Deputy Conservators of Forest and one has more length of service, i.e., that determines the relative seniority. 18. We cannot give a strained reading to this plain provision and insist that the seniority in the rank must be based on the level of pay. That means, as contended by the Trade Union, one must work in the entry rank for nine years before one could claim seniority of whatever nature. To determine the seniority, we need not consider the disparity of pay or grade alone; it may be an obvious one, though. Seniority by entry, that is by length of service, too, will suffice. Any other interpretation, we reckon, makes the recruitment rules unworkable. 19. Under these circumstances, going by the seniority as provided in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, which the Trade Union has not contradicted, we hold that Suresh has sufficient seniority in rank. And only limitation that could be read into his qualification and to the appointment of Suresh, if we could, is that the person to be next appointed as General Manager cannot be senior in rank to Suresh, reckoned by the length of service, rather than by the level of pay. 20. Therefore, we dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merit. No order as on costs.