JUDGMENT : K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The controversy raised herein has its genesis in the claim for transfer as raised by two Live Stock Inspectors [for brevity ‘LSI’] Grade-I, who wish to go out of the districts in which they were appointed as LSI Grade-II and then promoted as LSI Grade-I. They claimed that LSI Gr-I has a State-wide seniority list and is a State-wise post, to which transfer has to be carried out in accordance with the norms of the Government laid down for transfer of Government servants. Admittedly LSI Grade-I was also considered as District-wise posts and retained in the very same district for long. The Tribunal found that the LSI Grade-I and Assistant Field Officer [for brevity ‘AFO’], both promotion posts in the Subordinate Services, are State level posts and the transfers made of the incumbents would be treated as a general transfer and not inter-district transfer, the latter of which is subject to loss of seniority. 2. The petitioners in O.P. (KAT) Nos. 256 and 312 of 2018 are persons included in the rank list of the Kerala Public Service Commission [for brevity ‘PSC’] for recruitment to the post of LSI Grade-II in Thiruvananthapuram and Alappuzha Districts. They have no quarrel with the finding of the Tribunal that LSI Grade-I is a State level post. However, they are aggrieved with the further determination of the Tribunal as to in which district the vacancy of LSI Grade-II arise so as to report to the PSC. The petitioners assert that this was not a ground which was raised in the Tribunal and there was no scope for the Tribunal to go into such matters. 3. The State has filed O.P. (KAT) No. 247 of 2018 seeking to affirm its opinion that posts in LSI Grade-I are also District-wise posts. One LSI Grade-I from Thrissur has filed an impleading petition in O.P. (KAT) No. 247 of 2018, who is impleaded as additional respondent No. 3, to sustain the contentions of the State. He apprehends his transfer from Thrissur if the Tribunal's order is upheld and claims that he is eligible to be continued in Thrissur till a promotion post arises in the post of Field Officer, which is in the State Services as distinguished from the Subordinate Services. Field Officer is also the promotion post of Assistant Field Officer. He apprehends his transfer from Thrissur if the Tribunal's order is upheld and claims that he is eligible to be continued in Thrissur till a promotion post arises in the post of Field Officer, which is in the State Services as distinguished from the Subordinate Services. Field Officer is also the promotion post of Assistant Field Officer. The fact that Field Officer is in the State services while all other services are in the Subordinate Services of the State, is the ground on which the additional respondent seeks his retention in the District of Thrissur, to which he was recruited, till he is eligible to be appointed as Field Officer on promotion. The applicants before the Tribunal as also the petitioners herein urge that it is not the categorization of services as State and subordinate which distinguishes the posts as District-wise and State-wise. 4. We heard Sri. P. Nandakumar, Sri. D. Ajithkumar for the party-petitioners Sri. Antony Mukkath (Senior Government Pleader) for the petitioner State, Sri. Elvin Peter for the applicants before the Tribunal (respondents 1 and 2 herein) and Smt. Surya Binoy for the addl.3rd respondent in O.P. (KAT) 247 of 2018. 5. The learned Government Pleader and the additional 3rd respondent in O.P. (KAT) 247 of 2018 argue that LSI Grade-I and LSI Grade-II posts are in the same cadre and it is only on the basis of a time bound grade promotion that persons are adjusted in Grade-I. Reference is also made to Annexure R2(c) and R2(d) to point out that there is only a ratio promotion insofar as Grade-I and Grade-II as in the case of Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk. It also refers to there being no change of duty and in such circumstances both the posts are to be considered in the very same cadre. The learned Counsel for the petitioners as also respondents 1 and 2 in all the three Original Petitions (the applicants before the Tribunal) submit that LSI Grade-II is the entry post, to which recruitment is made by the PSC. The District wise seniority was a concept introduced in 1971, to ensure that the appointees to far flung districts do not vacate their posts immediately on recruitment, by inter-district transfers. 6. We find that the District-wise seniority was insisted upon because the PSC conducts recruitment District-wise to entry posts in the Subordinate Services. The District wise seniority was a concept introduced in 1971, to ensure that the appointees to far flung districts do not vacate their posts immediately on recruitment, by inter-district transfers. 6. We find that the District-wise seniority was insisted upon because the PSC conducts recruitment District-wise to entry posts in the Subordinate Services. Earlier a person appointed to a far-off district would immediately claim inter-district transfer and get a posting to his home district, resulting in dearth of government servants to man the posts in far flung districts, immediately after the recruitment itself. It is in such circumstances, on the advise of the PSC, the State decided to have a District-wise recruitment, which was brought in by G.O. (Ms.) No. 154/71/PD dated 27.05.1971. This Government Order provided for delegation of work to the District Recruitment Boards in connection to the advise of the candidates for certain posts. The specific purpose as seen from the G.O was to decentralise the recruitment of lower ministerial cadres in the District level. A person appointed in a particular district could seek inter-district transfer only after five years from the date of commencement of his service that too subject to the conditions laid down in GO (MS) No. 4/61/PD dated 02.01.1961. 7. The G.O. of 1961 deals with revised principles of mutual and inter-departmental transfers in public services. Therein the mutual interdepartmental transfers of Government servants from one unit to another within the same Department or from one Department to another within the same subordinate service can be ordered by the appointing authorities on request, subject to the conditions enumerated therein. The first condition is that a person transferred to a new unit will take rank below the junior most in the category in the new unit or Department. He would not be allowed to count his previous service towards seniority and his transfer would not be prejudicial to the legitimate interest of anyone in the Department to which he is transferred. This does not disallow counting of the previous service towards increment, leave, pension, gratuity etc. In such circumstances, inter-District transfers as regulated by the Government Order of 1971 would not affect the seniority of the persons in the District to which a person is transferred and he would be posted as a junior most in that District in that particular service and category. In such circumstances, inter-District transfers as regulated by the Government Order of 1971 would not affect the seniority of the persons in the District to which a person is transferred and he would be posted as a junior most in that District in that particular service and category. This is the reason for maintaining a District-wise seniority list and for promotion to any State-wise post the seniority as assigned in a District would regulate such promotions. 8. Hence, on obtaining an inter-district transfer, the person will be posted as the junior-most in the seniority list that exists in the District to which he is transferred, as on the date of joining in that District. It is by this Government Order that the concept of District-wise recruitment and District-wise seniority was introduced in the Subordinate Services. In such circumstances, the District-wise seniority is maintained only at the entry post and not in the promotion post. 9. We further notice the Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Special Rules, 1993, which is placed before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2. The mode of appointment is seen from Rule 3 of the Special Rules, wherein Category II speaks of Livestock Inspector Senior Grade, which post was re-designated as AFO. Category III is LSI Grade-I and Category VI LSI Grade-II, each category also enumerating other comparable posts too. We are referring to the LSI's post only, since that is the one which is relevant for the present Original Petitions. Mode of recruitment for LSI Grade-I is by promotion from Category VI, i.e. LSI Grade-II. Likewise promotion to Category II [LSI Senior Grade/AFO], from Category III, i.e. LSI Grade-I. They belong to different categories and are not distinct grades in the same category. 10. With respect to the contention of the additional 3rd respondent in W.A. No. 247 of 2018 that there is no change of duties and that LSI Grade-I and LSI Grade-II are in the same cadre, Sri. Elvin Peter points out Rule 28(e) of KS&SSR, which speaks of probation where there are more than one grade to the same category. 10. With respect to the contention of the additional 3rd respondent in W.A. No. 247 of 2018 that there is no change of duties and that LSI Grade-I and LSI Grade-II are in the same cadre, Sri. Elvin Peter points out Rule 28(e) of KS&SSR, which speaks of probation where there are more than one grade to the same category. Rule 28(e) is extracted hereunder: “28(e) Probation where there are more than one grade to the same category - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Special Rules where there are more than one grade to the same category and duties and responsibilities attached to the various grades are one and the same, and appointment to the higher grades are made by promotion from the lower grades, then probation shall be insisted only in the lowest grade to such category.” 11. To bring the two grades within the same category as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the additional 3rd respondent in the appeal of the State, there are conditions discernible of (i) there shall be no change of duties (ii) there are more than one grade within the same category and (iii) there shall be requirement of probation and declaration, on satisfactory completion only in the lower grade. As we have seen, the two grades of LSI Grade-I and LSI Grade-II are in two categories as per the Special Rules. It is also pertinent that the Special Rules prescribe for a probation period as per Rule 8, in the promotion post. Hence, even a person who is promoted as LSI Grade I from the post of LSI Grade II has to successfully complete probation in that post within the time stipulated therein. 12. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that LSI Grade I is a State-wise post nor is there a challenge to that by any government servant. The additional respondent cannot challenge the order by getting impleaded in the appeal. The Governments challenge stands rejected on the above reasoning. 13. We also specifically notice the statements made in the additional reply statement filed by the Government dated 05.01.2018 in paragraph 5: “5. It is submitted that promotions to Livestock Inspector Grade-I is done at state level, based on a state level Seniority list. The Governments challenge stands rejected on the above reasoning. 13. We also specifically notice the statements made in the additional reply statement filed by the Government dated 05.01.2018 in paragraph 5: “5. It is submitted that promotions to Livestock Inspector Grade-I is done at state level, based on a state level Seniority list. But state level posts are not separately identified or fixed at each unit/district of the department till date. Promoted employee will continued as district level employee in the same district even after promotion. When a vacancy of Livestock Inspector Grade-I arises, Senior most Livestock Inspector Grade-II in the state, based on a combined seniority list of Livestock Inspector Grade-II in all 14 Districts is promoted. Vacancy of Livestock Inspector Grade-I and Asst. Field Officer arised are considered as state level vacancy for promotion. Nature of duty of Livestock Inspector Grade-II, Livestock Inspector Grade-I, Assistant Field Officer are the same.” This goes contrary to the contentions raised in the State appeal. We do not find any merit in O.P. (KAT) No. 247 of 2018 filed by the State and reject the same, which was only against the finding of State-wise post with respect to LSI Grade-I. 14. We further notice the Tribunal having proceeded to formulate a method to determine State-wise seniority, by directing fixation of District-wise cadre insofar as the three categories of LSI Grade-II, LSI Grade-I and AFO, which works against their own finding that posts of LSI Grade-I and AFO are State level. Those directions are also beyond the scope of the O.A. 15. O.P. (KAT) Nos. 256 and 312 of 2018 are allowed, deleting the portions where the Tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction insofar as directing the State to fix seniority District-wise in different categories of posts discernible from the General Rules. We affirm the order of the Tribunal with respect to the LSI Grade-I being a State-wise post. We set aside the directions otherwise as to how the seniority has to be fixed in the different categories of posts as per the Special Rules; which is the prerogative of the State and the anomalies if any have not arisen for adjudication in the instant O.As. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.