JUDGMENT : Projected in this writ petition are the subtleties and nuances of the well entrenched concepts of “Quota – Rotation” in service jurisprudence. This doctrine, better known as the “Quota – Rota Rule” applies when there are more than one source of recruitment to a post. 2. The essential argument impelled is that a “quota” in recruitment is interlocked with “rota” and therefore, that seniority in the cadre is to be fixed as per the third proviso to Rule 27A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR). However, as is now settled, the “Quota Rule” does not inevitably, invoke the application of the 'Rota Rule” and will depend whether a particular roster is stipulated in the applicable Rules or Regulations for figuring out the placement of officers on entry. 3. The above issues have been called into focus in this case in relation to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (for short, 'the KSEB'). 4. A quick travel through the unexpendable facts will first be apposite. 5. The petitioners are stated to be Assistant Engineers working with the KSEB; and have approached this Court assailing Ext.P38 Provisional Seniority List of Assistant Engineers (Electrical), who were directly recruited into its services as on 25.03.2014. 6. According to the petitioners, the appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in KSEB are to be effected in the roster/ratio of 1:4:3:2 from among the “in service” engineering graduates, direct recruits from open market, diploma holders and certificate holders (the last of the two categories being promotions). They say that they were “in service” candidates who had acquired graduation and therefore, appointed as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) under the 10% quota ear-marked for them. Their grievance shown in this writ petition is that they have been placed below the direct recruits in excess of their 40% quota and that this robs them of all avenues for further promotions in their career. 7. The petitioners, therefore, seek that the KSEB be directed to re-cast the provisional seniority list strictly in terms of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS & SSR). 8. 7. The petitioners, therefore, seek that the KSEB be directed to re-cast the provisional seniority list strictly in terms of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS & SSR). 8. I have heard Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.H.Vishnudas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and Smt.Anitha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB. 9. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel, began his submissions by asserting that since the roster of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) has been statutorily prescribed, the seniority list will have to be settled strictly in terms of the positions therein, which is to say by following the “Quota and Rotational” prescriptions. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that since 10% vacancies are to be concededly filled up by “in service” candidates like his clients, they are entitled to be placed in the seniority list strictly as per the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR and alleges that Ext.P38 provisional seniority list has been prepared in gross violation of the same, thus being egregiously improper, when, admittedly, the provisions of the KS & SSR had been adopted by the KSEB. 10. The learned senior counsel in support of his submissions relied on Mervyn Continho and others v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and others [ AIR 1967 SC 52 ]; Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India [1992 Supp (1) SCC 272]; N.K.Chauhan & others v. State of Gujarat & others [ (1977) 1 SCC 308 ]; P.S.Mahal and others v. Union of India and others [ AIR 1984 SC 1291 ]; M.S.L.Patil, Asstt. Conservator of Forests, Solarpur (Maharashtra) and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [ (1996) 11 SCC 361 ]; A.N.Sehgal and others v. Raje Ram Sheoran and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 304]; and Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab and others [ (2006) 6 SCC 673 ]. 11. In refutation of the afore submissions of the learned senior counsel, Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., learned counsel for the fourth respondent, submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable because none of the affected parties ? who are presently included in Ext.P38 seniority list ? 11. In refutation of the afore submissions of the learned senior counsel, Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., learned counsel for the fourth respondent, submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable because none of the affected parties ? who are presently included in Ext.P38 seniority list ? has been arrayed; and that, in fact, his client had impleaded himself in this writ petition, so as to bring the true factual and forensic scenario to the notice of this Court. 12. After so contending, Sri.Elvin Peter argued that the provisions of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR is not applicable to this case, since there is no “roster” which is statutorily prescribed for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer; and that, as is evident from Ext.P10, 10% vacancies had been carved out from the earlier quota fixed for direct recruitment, but without prescribing that the appointments must be made in a ratio of 1:4 or 4:1, as asserted by the petitioners. He submitted that this is pertinent because, the only ratio applicable for appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer is available in Ext.P9 order, wherein, it has been fixed as 5:3:2 between Degree holders (direct recruits), Diploma holders and Certificate holders ? the latter of two categories being promotees. 13. Sri. Elvin Peter then explained that, out of the afore 50% vacancies reserved for appointment from direct recruits, 10% were carved out to be filled up by those persons who were in service with the necessary qualifications. He thus reiteratingly submitted that there is no 'roster' as far as the direct recruits are concerned; though unequivocally admitting that a quota has been carved out to render that while 10% of the vacancies shall be filled up by “in service” graduate candidates, the balance 40% will be filled up through direct recruits. He submitted that since the petitioners have no case that the afore quota has been breached or that any person mentioned in Ext.P38 seniority list had been appointed in excess of the specific quota applicable to him, no reliefs can be granted in this case, particularly because ? as has already been contended above ? He submitted that since the petitioners have no case that the afore quota has been breached or that any person mentioned in Ext.P38 seniority list had been appointed in excess of the specific quota applicable to him, no reliefs can be granted in this case, particularly because ? as has already been contended above ? the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR would not be applicable when there is no fixed ratio as far as the filling up of post of Assistant Engineers, earmarked for graduates in the services of the KSEB, is concerned. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 14. Smt. A.G. Aneetha, the learned standing counsel for the KSEB, submitted that Ext.P38 provisional seniority list has been prepared taking note of the date of advice of the candidates to the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and that this has been done strictly in terms of the provisions of Rule 27 of the KS & SSR. She submitted that since the petitioners do not challenge the inclusion of any individual person in the rank list, but only that it ought to have been settled following the provisions of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR, this writ petition is not maintainable on account of the singular fact that the affected persons have not been brought on the party array. She also, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 15. In reply, Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel, submitted that the afore submissions have been made by the respondents on a misreading of the provisions of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR, because its provisions would be attracted in cases where the methods of appointments to a post are by promotion and direct recruitment, either in a fixed ratio or percentage. He submitted that even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that there is no fixed ratio as far as the two categories of direct recruits are concerned, there is a clear percentage ? as is prescribed through Ext.P10 and therefore, that the said proviso would apply fully. He submitted that even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that there is no fixed ratio as far as the two categories of direct recruits are concerned, there is a clear percentage ? as is prescribed through Ext.P10 and therefore, that the said proviso would apply fully. He thus contended that even in the absence of any of the persons in Ext.P38 being on the party array, the challenge to the said seniority list cannot be sought to be defeated by the respondents, since what is being prayed for is the compliance of the statutory mandate, which the KSEB is bound to do, it being expressly conceded that the provisions of KS & SSR are applicable to them. 16. It is obvious from the afore record of submissions that the primary case of the petitioners is that the appointments to the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the services of the KSEB had been made in a fixed ratio and therefore, that their seniority will have to be reckoned and fixed in terms of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR. 17. However, when one examines Ext.P10, which is the order which enables “in service” graduates also to stake claim for being appointed as Assistant Engineers, it is perspicuous that what is stipulated therein is that 10% of the vacancies will be reserved for such candidates, while the balance 40% will be reserved for direct recruits, who are to be advised by the PSC. Of course, subsequently through Ext.P27 order, the appointment of the “in service” candidates were also brought within the purview of the PSC; and thus, as matters now stand, it is without doubt – it being uncontested – that both these categories are now advised by the PSC, as and when vacancies occur. 18. Therefore, it is indubitable that there is no particular “roster” followed by the KSEB for appointment of the two categories in the direct recruitment stream, but there is a quota of 10% and 40% vacancies respectively for the “in service” graduates and open market candidates respectively. 19. 18. Therefore, it is indubitable that there is no particular “roster” followed by the KSEB for appointment of the two categories in the direct recruitment stream, but there is a quota of 10% and 40% vacancies respectively for the “in service” graduates and open market candidates respectively. 19. Viewed from that perspective, when one examines the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR, it may not concede to much doubt that the said provision has been designed primarily to operate where a “roster” is enlivened, with a particular vacancy being earmarked for a particular category, succeeded by another category in the subsequent vacancy. Obviously, when there is no such roster available in the services of the KSEB, as far as the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is concerned, the provisions of the afore proviso would apply only in a very restrictive sense. 20. That said, however, as I have already said above, there is no dispute between the rivals in this case that there is a particular quota fixed for the two categories of candidates. In that sense, the submissions of the learned senior counsel, relying upon the various judgments cited above, would obtain certain force. I say this because, as has been declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore judgments, when different categories of recruitments are provided for filling up of a particular post and when quotas are specifically earmarked, candidates can be advised or appointed only within the confines of the said quotas and not beyond. It has been also declared affirmatively by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when appointments are made in excess of the quota, those persons who obtained such appointments will have to make way to provide for seniority of those persons who are eligible to their quota, as are statutorily prescribed. 21. In other words, if there are direct recruits from open market appointed in excess of the 40% quota, but granted seniority over the 10% “in service” candidates appointed within their quota, certainly their position will have to be pushed down to accommodate the latter; and they cannot claim to the contrary merely because they were advised or appointed in excess of their eligible quota, before the candidates of the other quota had not been so advised or appointed. 22. 22. There can be no doubt that, going by the afore cited judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared as afore without leaving any room for confusion and this is particularly luculent from N.K.Chauhan (supra) where the Hon'ble Court said that though the Rule does not inevitably invoke the application of the rota rule, “if exigencies of administration demand quick posting in a vacancy and one source (here, direct recruitment) has gone dry for a while, then the proper course is to wait for the direct recruit and give him notional date of entry as of the quota vacancy and manage to keep the wheels of Government moving through improvised promotions.” This view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in all its judgments, including in A.N.Sehgal (supra), in which the following had been affirmatively stated in paragraph 18: “With a view to achieve this objective, the rule-making authority envisaged to appoint direct recruits as well as by promotion from Class II Service, otherwise by transfer from other services. In interpreting the rules, effect must be given to allow everyone drawn from these sources to have their due share in the service and chances of involvement to effectively discharge the duties of the posts honestly and efficiently with dedication. Any wanton or deliberate deviation in the implementation of the rules should be curbed and snubbed and the rules must be strictly implemented to achieve the above purpose. If wanton deviations are allowed to be repeated, it would breed indiscipline among the services and amount to undue favour to some and denial of equality for many for reasons known or unknown subverting the purpose of the rules.” 23. When one analyses the facts of this case on the touchstone of the law as afore declared, it emerges as being virtually uncontested, that there are two quotas available within the stream of direct recruitment for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), both to be advised by the PSC. The applicable order of the KSEB, namely Ext.P10, mandates that 10% of the vacancies are to be filled up from “in service” candidates who are graduates; while the balance 40% vacancies will have to be filled up from open market. 24. There is thus an unmistakable quota stipulated for the two categories of candidates and this cannot be doubted for a moment. 25. 24. There is thus an unmistakable quota stipulated for the two categories of candidates and this cannot be doubted for a moment. 25. When such quotas have been so formulated, then it is needless to say that every time a vacancy arises, appointments will have to be confined from within the confines of the said quotas and it cannot be allowed to run haywire, merely because one category is not available at a particular point of time. If this is allowed, it will defeat the very purpose of the “quota” stipulations, particularly when the candidates who come in through these two streams as Assistant Engineers will then become a homogeneous group to be considered for the next promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. 26. From the perspective above, I am certain that, though the provisions of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR would not apply with respect to the fixing of seniority among the candidates who are advised by the PSC to the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) through direct recruitment, the enforcement of the quota requirements will certainly have to be kept in mind by the KSEB. They will have to thus assess the vacancy position at every stage where the process of recruitment had been taken forward and will then have to apportion it strictly in terms of the quota of 10% and 40% vacancies among the two categories of candidates, mentioned above. 27. As rightly stated by Sri.Elvin peter, the pleadings on record do not show whether the 534 direct recruits from open market, who have been allegedly placed over the petitioners in the impugned provisional seniority list, were recruited through the same process or with respect to the vacancies that were available within a particular duration; but I cannot find fault with the petitioners for not being so aware because Ext.P38 is a seniority list of all the Assistant Engineers (Electrical), both in the 10% quota and the 40% quota, in the services of the KSEB as on 25.3.2014. 28. 28. In its proper application of the quota Rule, the KSEB ought to have prepared the seniority list as and when each process was completed, so as to fix the candidates in the positions that are available to them under their respective quotas, but this does not appear to have been done; and they seem to have prepared Ext.P38 seniority list by taking all the Engineers together, available as on 25.03.2014, without verifying as to when they were appointed and against which vacancies. 29. This certainly cannot obtain my favour and I am sure that this Court will be justified in moulding relief to that extent, since it runs contrary to the provisions of law, as also the affirmative declarations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, surveyed above. 30. Before I conclude, I must also address one of the corollary arguments of Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel, that Ext.P38 list is also contrary to the observations of the Chief Engineer of the KSEB contained in Ext.P35 proceedings. He pointed out that in Ext.P35, the Chief Engineer has found that there is a ratio of 1:4:3:2 as far as the appointments to the post of Assistant Engineers in the services of the KSEB is concerned and therefore, that the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR would be applicable. 31. I am afraid that I cannot accede to this argument because, what is contained in Ext.P35 is the opinion of the Chief Engineer, which he appears to have garnered from the various orders of the Board and the judgments of this Court, but this cannot be taken as being conclusive to mean that there is such a ratio applicable in the services of the KSEB, as far as the posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) are concerned. 32. As already indited above, the orders on record do not show any such ratio, except between direct recruits as a whole, Certificate holders and Diploma holders; while within the category of direct recruits, only the afore quotas have been prescribed and not a roster or ratio. Certainly therefore, the provisions of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR will not apply as far as the seniority of the two categories of persons, who are appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the KSEB, through the direct recruitment stream. 33. Certainly therefore, the provisions of the third proviso to Rule 27A of the KS & SSR will not apply as far as the seniority of the two categories of persons, who are appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the KSEB, through the direct recruitment stream. 33. For the afore reasons, I am of the opinion that, though Ext.P38 need not be set aside by this Court, it requires to be reviewed by the competent Authority of the KSEB, verifying whether any person has been appointed in excess of the applicable quota at the relevant time, which will certainly necessitate an assessment of the vacancy position from time to time. This is certainly necessary, going by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court afore cited and without this, the fixing of seniority among the two categories ? who enjoy separate quotas ? recruited to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), cannot be granted imprimatur. 34. Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered to the extent of directing the KSEB to re-examine Ext.P38 provisional seniority list, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as also to all other persons who are included therein; and then recast it, if so necessary, after assessing the vacancy position at the time when each of the recruitment processes had been completed and to re-publish it as a fresh provisional seniority list. The afore shall be done by the KSEB as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.