JUDGMENT : Chitambaresh, J. 'Better late than never' is a phrase which continues to be relevant. The seniority list fraught with illegality has to be revised. It needs to be done for the multiple reasons stated herein below. 2. The final state-wise seniority list of Junior Accountants in the Treasury Department was published by the Directorate of Treasuries on 5.2.1998 without a provisional seniority list or calling for objections. It is alleged that the final seniority list was so drawn up misconstruing the provisions of the Kerala Treasury Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 1997 ('the Special Rules'). The final seniority list did not however reflect as to who among those included therein were the beneficiaries of inter-district transfer which would entail in loss of seniority. Repeated representations (during the period from 1998 to 2013) were filed objecting to the final seniority list and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal was moved lamenting inaction. The Tribunal directed an expeditious consideration of the representations and the Government eventually decided to revise the seniority list by G.O. (Rt)No.4930/14/Fin dated 23.6.2014. 3. The above order of the Government was challenged by those who enjoyed seniority notwithstanding the fact that they were beneficiaries of inter-district transfer by filing original applications before the Tribunal. The same were resisted by the petitioners herein relying on the provisions of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 ('the KS&SSR') and the Government Orders. The Tribunal has by the order impugned set aside G.O.(Rt)No.4930/14/Fin dated 23.6.2014 observing that the seniority cannot be upset applying the 'sit back' theory. The objectors contend that they were never put on notice earlier about the assigning of seniority to those who secured inter-district transfer and the 'sit back' theory is of no avail. The petitioners assert that the final state-wise seniority list has been drawn up without reference to the provisions of KS&SSR and the Special Rules warranting a revision as proposed. 4. We heard Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Advocate, Mr. P. Nandakumar, Advocate, Mr. K. Rajesh Kannan, Advocate, Mr. Antony Mukkath, Government Pleader for the petitioners and Mr. P.C. Sasidharan, Standing Counsel, Kerala Public Service Commission for the supporting respondent as well as Mr. K.P. Satheesan, Senior Advocate and Mr. B.S. Swathy Kumar, Advocate for the contesting respondents. 5. 4. We heard Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Advocate, Mr. P. Nandakumar, Advocate, Mr. K. Rajesh Kannan, Advocate, Mr. Antony Mukkath, Government Pleader for the petitioners and Mr. P.C. Sasidharan, Standing Counsel, Kerala Public Service Commission for the supporting respondent as well as Mr. K.P. Satheesan, Senior Advocate and Mr. B.S. Swathy Kumar, Advocate for the contesting respondents. 5. We extract below the relevant part of the Government Orders pertaining to inter-unit and inter-district transfers and its impact on the seniority of the appointees in the various departments of the State: “i. G.O.(Ms.)4/61/PD dated 2.1.1961. (1) A person transferred to a new unit will take rank below the juniormost in the category in the new Unit or Department. He will not be allowed to count his previous service towards seniority. Such transfers should not be prejudicial to the legitimate interest of anyone in the department to which he is transferred. But he may be allowed to count his previous service towards increment, leave, pension, gratuity, etc. He will not be required to undergo fresh probation, if he has already completed probation. (ii) G.O.(Ms.)154/71/PD dated 27.5.1971. (D) xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx (i) No transfers will be allowed from one District to another within a period of five years from the date of commencement of continuous service. (ii) Such inter-district transfers will be allowed only after five years and subject to the conditions laid down in G.O.(Ms.)No.4/61/PD, dated 2.1.1961. (iii) G.O.(Ms.)442/80/GAD dated 26.9.1980. (i) No transfer will be allowed from one District to another within a period of five years from the date of commencement of continuous service; (ii) Such inter-district transfers will be allowed only after five years and subject to the conditions laid down in G.O.(Ms.)4/61/PD, dated 2.1.1961. (iii) Headquarters vacancies will be allotted to each District by rotation, starting with Trivandrum. (iv) G.O.(P)36/91/P&ARD dated 2.12.1991. 5. Relaxation of the five year rule in very exceptional cases that need sympathetic consideration will require the approval of the Council of Ministers. Cases should not be proposed for relaxation in a routine manner. There should be clear justifying grounds supported by the report of the District Collector of the district to which transfer is sought for. Proposal for relaxation in such cases shall be routed through Chief Secretary. 6. Cases should not be proposed for relaxation in a routine manner. There should be clear justifying grounds supported by the report of the District Collector of the district to which transfer is sought for. Proposal for relaxation in such cases shall be routed through Chief Secretary. 6. Only 10% of the vacancies arising in the district in an year in a category in a department shall be filled up by inter-district transfer, including relaxation cases and cases of near relatives/dependents of soldiers. (v) G.O.(P)37/96/P&ARD dated 7.11.1996. 3. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (i) A district-wise recruit shall complete five years service in the district of recruitment as well as in the department where he is working so as to become eligible to get an inter-district transfer to another district. (ii) Inter-district transfer of district-wise recruits will result in loss of seniority even in cases where state-wise seniority list is maintained for promotion.” (emphasis supplied) An inter-district transfer will not be allowed within a period of five years from the date of commencement of continuous service except in exceptional cases with the approval of the Council of Ministers. An inter-district transfer of district-wise recruits will result in loss of seniority by becoming the junior most in the category even in cases where state-wise seniority list is maintained for promotion. 6. The Government Orders referred to above are strictly in accordance with the proviso to Rule 27(a) of Part II of KS&SSR and the relevant part in so far as it relates to inter-unit transfer is as follows: “27. Seniority - (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. Seniority - (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. Explanation - xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Provided that the seniority of persons on mutual or inter-unit or inter-departmental transfer from one Unit to another within the same Department or from one Department to another, as the case may be, on request from such persons shall be determined with reference to the dates of their joining duty in the new Unit or Department........................” (emphasis supplied) That an inter-district or an inter-unit transfer will entail in loss of seniority in the transferred District or Unit has been reiterated in Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala [ 2006 (2) KLT 817 (SC)] as follows: “16. The transferred LDCs next submitted that the intention of making a provision that a person on an 'own request' transfer will be ranked as the juniormost in the new district or new unit, is to ensure that the seniority of the existing employees in the category in the new unit or district is not affected by a senior person coming from outside by transfer. It is contended that where the promotion post is State-wise, the seniority of the existing employees in the district to which the outside employee is transferred, will not be affected and, therefore, where the promotion is to a state-wise post, proviso to Rule 27(a) which requires those who are transferred on 'own request', to give up their seniority, will not apply. We cannot agree. The alleged intention behind a provision, cannot be used to defeat the express words of the provision. Once a statutory rule is made, without providing any exceptions, it is not possible to carve out exceptions to such rule, by judicial interpretation. Nor can an exemption from application of a clear and specific rule be claimed on the ground of hardship or similar reasons. The proviso to Rule 27(a) of the Rules is categorical and applies to all employees transferred on own request. Nor can an exemption from application of a clear and specific rule be claimed on the ground of hardship or similar reasons. The proviso to Rule 27(a) of the Rules is categorical and applies to all employees transferred on own request. It does not make distinction between employees whose promotion post is a State-wise post and those where the promotion posts are district-wise posts.” (emphasis supplied) The beneficiaries of the inter-district or inter-unit transfers cannot wriggle out of the rigour of the proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SSR by drawing a distinction between the state-wise and district-wise promotion posts. Sudhakaran's case (supra) has later been followed in Ramachandran N. and others v. S. Madhu and others [ 2012 (2) KHC 51 (FB)] relating to seniority of Excise Guards. 7. The amendment to the Special Rules which came into effect on 12.12.1972 clarifies that the method of appointment to the post of Junior Accountant is by direct recruitment by introducing Rule 4B thereto. Rule 5 of the Special Rules is categoric that the District Treasury Officer of the concerned Revenue District shall be the appointing authority in respect of the post of Junior Accountant. It has been stated in Rule 3 of the Special Rules that the State shall be the Unit for the category of Junior Accountant which is obviously for the purpose of promotion only. An inter-district transfer does not cease to be so merely because a state-wise seniority list treating the State as a Unit is maintained for promotion to the post of Senior Accountant. That the Government has so understood Rule 3 of the Special Rules is evident from the various Government Orders particularly G.O.(P)37/96/ P&ARD dated 7.11.1996 (supra). It is not in dispute that recruitment to the post of Junior Accountant has been from the district-wise ranked list of the PSC and the appointment was by the District Treasury Officer. Even the notification of the PSC inviting applications to the post of Junior Accountant makes it abundantly clear that the appointment is subject to the Government Orders (supra). Added to this is the fact that the appointees who sought an inter-district transfer had submitted a declaration that they 'agree to be ranked as junior to the junior most'. Even the notification of the PSC inviting applications to the post of Junior Accountant makes it abundantly clear that the appointment is subject to the Government Orders (supra). Added to this is the fact that the appointees who sought an inter-district transfer had submitted a declaration that they 'agree to be ranked as junior to the junior most'. The Government Orders and the proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SSR were being followed in the preparation of seniority list of Junior Accountants till the amendment to the Special Rules. There is no rationale or justification on the part of those transferred inter-district to claim seniority from the date of the order of their first appointment to such category. 8. The seniority of Junior Accountants turned topsy-turvy when the final state-wise seniority list for the period from 1.11.1987 to 30.9.1995 was published on 5.2.1998 after the amendment to the Special Rules. The entire State was taken as one Unit presumably on the basis of Rule 3 of the Special Rules de hors the fact that appointment was from district-wise ranked list. It may at once be noticed that there is no question of any inter-district transfer if the State is to be treated as a Unit which exposes the fallacy of the contention of those transferred. The state-wise seniority list published also did not reflect that many of those included therein have been transferred from other districts in order to operate as notice to all. No provisional seniority was published after the amendment to the Special Rules facilitating the parties to prefer an objection before the final seniority list was published. The Government thought it fit to revise the seniority list by G.O.(Rt)No.4930/14/Fin dated 23.6.2014 after rectifying the mistakes on the basis of the representations received. The Government in so doing took note of the proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SSR and the dictum laid down in Sudhakaran's case (supra) as well as the remarks of the Law Department. But the Government Order has been set aside by the Tribunal on the premise that the State is the Unit and that the beneficiaries of inter-district transfer can call in aid 'sit back' theory. 9. It is true that 'every person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years'. 9. It is true that 'every person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years'. The dictum as above in Rabindranath Bose and others v. Union of India [ (1970) 1 SCC 84 ] has been followed in C.C. Gupta and others v. N.K. Pandey and others [ (1988) 1 SCC 316 ]. The former case dealt with promotions effected 15 years ago and the latter case dealt with the seniority determined 17 years ago as on the date of filing of the writ petitions. The fact scenario in the instant case is different since the state-wise seniority list of Junior Accountants was published after the amended Special Rules for the first time on 5.2.1998. It was only in that seniority list were drastic changes effected pushing down many and pulling up those who were transferred unmindful of the inter-district transfer. Even that seniority list did not reflect as to who were the beneficiaries of the inter-district transfer in which case only can the same operate as public notice to all who are empanelled. An appointee can seek the benefit of 'sit back' theory only if he demonstrates that he has been enjoying his seniority without being questioned and with notice to his rival for long. The appointees who were the beneficiaries of the inter-district transfer are not entitled to sit back and enjoy their unmerited seniority in the absence of effective notice to rivals. The Government was well within its powers to issue G.O. (Rt)4930/14/Fin dated 23.6.2014 deciding to revise the seniority list of Junior Accountants in the Treasury Department. The steps taken in that regard by the Government cannot be faulted with and the Tribunal erred in setting aside the said order on all or any of the grounds urged by the applicants. The impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed restoring G.O.(Rt)4930/14/Fin dated 23.6.2014 leaving open the right of the Government to revise the seniority list as indicated above. The original petitions are allowed. No costs.