JUDGMENT : T.R. Ravi, J. The petitioner who is now working as Office Attendant at the Office of the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, entered service on 01.12.2010 through a selection process conducted by the 1st respondent, Kerala Public Service Commission. The selection was conducted for the post of Office Attendant in various departments in Malappuram district. When the turn arose for the appointment, there was no vacancy available in Malappuram district and the petitioner was advised to join in the headquarters vacancy in the office of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram. His probation was declared on 16.10.2010. While working in the said office, the petitioner got appointment as Office Attendant in the Education Department in the Malappuram district. He was included in the final seniority list of Class IV employees working under the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram. 2. On 18.08.2017, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3(A3) notification calling for applications for appointment by transfer to the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science). One of the qualification prescribed is that the applicant should have not less than 5 years service as Clerk/Typist/Attender/Office Attendant in the General Education Department as on the date of application. The petitioner had applied pursuant to the above notification. The petitioner's application was rejected by the 1st respondent since he had not put in the necessary number of years of service. The rejection of the application was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal in O.A.491/2018 which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 14.9.2020. The petitioner preferred as review application as R.A.(Ekm)No.2/2020 which was also dismissed by the Tribunal. It is challenging the orders of the Tribunal that this original petition is preferred. The issue that needs to be decided in this original petition is whether the said period of 5 years has to be service in the General Education Department alone or whether it can include the petitioner's previous service in the headquarters. 3. Heard Dr.George Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed in the headquarters vacancy as Office Attendant and was subsequently appointed as Office Attendant in the General Education Department, Malappuram district. Heard Dr.George Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed in the headquarters vacancy as Office Attendant and was subsequently appointed as Office Attendant in the General Education Department, Malappuram district. It is also not disputed that the petitioner does not have 5 years' service in the General Education Department. Annexure A3 produced along with the original application before the Tribunal is the notification dated 18.08.2017 calling for applications for appointment by transfer. In paragraph 7(a), dealing with qualifications, it has been specifically stated that the applicant should have service as Clerk/Typist/Attender/Office Attendant in the General Education Department with not less than 5 years as on the date of application. The petitioner was hence fully aware of the requirement of service in the General Education Department of not less than 5 years. The petitioner relies on G.O.(P)No.5/2010/P & ARD. Dated 04.03.2010, whereby the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service were amended. The order has been produced as Annexure A8 in the original application. As per the amendment, Note III was added under sub-rule (c) of Rule 14 of the Special Rules. After amendment, the Rule reads as follows: “Rule 14. Seniority.-(a) Seniority of a member in any category of the service 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 category: Provided that if any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under the rules, his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation. (b) The Appointing Authority shall, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to the service, fix the order of preference among them, and seniority shall be determined in accordance with it. (b) The Appointing Authority shall, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to the service, fix the order of preference among them, and seniority shall be determined in accordance with it. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a category in the service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such category and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are arranged in the advice list. Note (1). -The date of effective advice in this rule means the date of the letter of the Commission on the basis of which the candidate is appointed. Note (2) -Seniority of a person advised by the District Office of the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment against a vacancy in Headquarters and transferred after such appointment to the District of the choice shall be determined with reference to the original advice by the District Office of the Public Service Commission. Note (3).-The seniority of a person advised by the District Office of the Kerala Public Service Commission and appointed against a Headquarters vacancy in the Government Secretariat, Advocate General's Office and similar Departments having no extension in Districts and transferred after such appointment to any Department in the opted District of his choice, shall be determined on the basis of his date of first effective advice for appointment to such category.” 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of service of 5 years has to be understood, having regard to Rule 14 also. It is contended that the effect of Rule 14 is to ensure that the petitioner retains the benefits of his service under the headquarters vacancy and the same will have to be added to his service in the General Education Department, for the purpose of determining whether he has the required service for the purpose of appointment by transfer as HSA. The above contention is countered by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the concept of 'seniority' and 'service' are two different things and a Rule which determines the seniority of persons cannot in any way impact the service rendered by a person in two different Departments. According to the counsel for the respondents, for the purpose of an appointment by transfer as an HSA in the General Education Department, there is a prescription that the applicant should have service in the Department and this requirement cannot in any way be affected by Rule 14 which determines the seniority of a Last Grade Servant. 6. The Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent pointed out that the term 'service' has been defined in Rule 2(15) of Part I of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, which reads as follows: “Rule 15. Service.-"Service” means a group of persons classified by the State Government as a State or a Subordinate Service as the case may be.” It is submitted that the above definition clearly shows that what is intended by the term 'service' has no relation to the seniority of a person in a particular post. It is contended that mere inclusion in the seniority list of the Office Attendants in the General Education Department will not in any way create right in the petitioner for being appointed as High School Assistant (Physical Science), for which he will have to satisfy the further requirements regarding qualification and the number of years of service prescribed. 7. The Tribunal in the impugned order accepted the contentions of the respondents and held that the amendment carried out by Annexure A8 to the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service was intended to clarify that persons appointed against headquarters vacancies are entitled to retain their seniority based on the first effective date of advice and that it does not in any way enable the petitioner to reckon his prior service in other Departments for determining the eligibility to apply for the post of HSA (Physical Science). We find no reason to hold otherwise. Rule 14 of the Last Grade Service Special Rules deals only with the seniority of the personnel and does not declare that the service of a last grade servant in a department will be treated as similar and equivalent to the service rendered in another department. We find no reason to hold otherwise. Rule 14 of the Last Grade Service Special Rules deals only with the seniority of the personnel and does not declare that the service of a last grade servant in a department will be treated as similar and equivalent to the service rendered in another department. The placing of a last grade servant in the seniority on the basis of his first appointment in the headquarter service can, only be considered for the purpose of any regular promotion to the next higher category of post, within the same service, to which he may be entitled to solely on the basis of seniority in service, if any such promotion is envisaged by the Rules. Such placement will not have the effect of altering the requirement of service in a particular department along with necessary qualifications for the purpose of appointment by transfer to a post in a different service. The fine and substantial distinction between promotion (which is from the lower post or grade to the higher post or grade, within the same service) and transfer appointment from one service to another, has to be kept in mind. 8. The counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P2 Government order dated 25.01.2001 to submit that the prescription in the Government order is only to the effect that the applicant should have 5 years' service and there is no requirement that the service should be in the General Education Department. We are unable to countenance the above submission. As per G.O.(MS)No.438/17/G.Edn. dated 20.10.1970 (Ext.P1), the Government considered the request of the Typists of Education Department who have the necessary qualifications for being considered for appointment by transfer to the post of Graduate Assistant Gr.II. The Government ordered that UD Clerks/UD Typists in the Education Department who have put in not less than 5 years of service as Clerks/Typists and who have the B.Ed. qualification may apply to the Public Service Commission for being appointed to these posts. It was also ordered that such appointment by transfer will be limited to 10% of the vacancies in each subject in each revenue district. It can be seen that the Government order clearly stipulates that the service required is service in the Education Department. In Ext.P2 G.O.(Ms.)No. 2001/G.Edn. It was also ordered that such appointment by transfer will be limited to 10% of the vacancies in each subject in each revenue district. It can be seen that the Government order clearly stipulates that the service required is service in the Education Department. In Ext.P2 G.O.(Ms.)No. 2001/G.Edn. dated 25.01.2001, the Government considered the request of Peons and Attenders in the General Education Department possessing similar qualifications for being considered for appointment by transfer as High School Assistants. After considering the request, the Government clarified the earlier order Ext.P1 dated 20.10.1970, and ordered that the appointment by transfer to the post of High School Assistant against the quota of 10% will be available to Clerks, Typists, Attenders and Peons in the General Education Department who have the prescribed qualification and who have put in not less than 5 years of service. The reference to 5 years of service in paragraph 3 of the order Ext.P2 does not in any manner mean that the service required can be in any Department. The above Government order was only intended to clarify that along with Clerks and Typists, the Peons and Attenders can also aspire for appointment by transfer to the post, provided, they have the required qualifications. The order does not in any way change the prescribed qualifications. It only expands the eligible category of Clerks and Typists by including the Peons and Attenders also. 9. On a reading of the Government orders Exts.P1 & P2 and Rule 14 of the Special Rules, we are of the considered opinion that the reasonings of the Tribunal in the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality nor does the order suffer from any irregularity or impropriety or irrationality. The petitioner has not challenged the government orders Exts.P1 & P2 but only seeks to interpret the same to mean that the service stated in the Government orders have to be read as service in any department. We are unable to accept the said contention. No interference is called for to the order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. (Ekm) No.491 of 2008 and the order dated 14.09.2020 in the review application R.A.(Ekm) No.2 of 2020. The original petition fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.