JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The question raised in this original petition and original application is as to whether the seniority of the petitioner is to be counted w.e.f. date of joining of duty as mandated in Proviso to Rule 27 (c) of Part II of KS & SSR or whether his seniority is to be reckoned from the date of initial advice memo issued by the PSC etc. The Tribunal has held as per the impugned Ext.P6 final order rendered on 16.3.2021, that since the petitioner had joined duty after the expiry of three months time limit from the date of the appointment order, and that too after securing 10 days extension of joining time, his seniority can be reckoned in the post to which he has been advised and appointed only from the date joining of duty as envisaged in Proviso to Rule 27 (c) of KS & SSR Par II, and the contention of the petitioner that the seniority should be reckoned from the date of the effective advice given by the PSC in terms of Rule 27 (c) has been overruled by the Tribunal. It is this verdict at Ext.P6 that is under challenge in this original petition filed by the original applicant therein before this Court by invoking the provisions contained in Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. Manoj Ramaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the OP/applicant in the OA and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in the OP/respondents in the OA. 3. A brief recital to the factual aspects would be really pertinent to this case. In this case the PSC had issud Annexure A1 memo dated 31.12.2001 advising that the petitioner be appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, consequent to the selection process initiated by the Public Service Commission. Thereafter, the appointing authority had issued Annexure A2 order dated 28.6.2002 appointing the petitioner as Asst. Engineer in the PWD. It appears that at that time the petitioner was employed in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) as Assistant Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the appointing authority had issued Annexure A2 order dated 28.6.2002 appointing the petitioner as Asst. Engineer in the PWD. It appears that at that time the petitioner was employed in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) as Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner would say that though he wanted immediately to get relieved from the KSEB to join duty in the post under the PWD, the KSEB did not relieve him immediately as his continued service was essential to the ongoing works in KSEB. The applicant had requested for extension of joining time, and that request was ultimately rejected by the Government as per Annexure R1 (a) proceedings dated 23.12.2002, but with a direction that the petitioner is given 10 days time to join duty in the post. It also appears that consequent thereto, the petitioner had joined duty on 16.1.2003 and later his probation was satisfactorily declared by the appointing authority w.e.f.18.9.2012. Later, the provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers was published by the PWD on 15-12-2007 and later revised seniority list was published as per Annexure A5 on 22.4.2014. It appears that the seniority position therein was on the basis of date of joining duty as envisaged in Proviso to Rule 27 (c) of KS & SSR Par II. Subsequently the petitioner was promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f.9.9.2016. After the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer, a provisional list of Assistant Executive 6 Engineer was published as per A6 dated 5.2.2018. At that time petitioner has submitted Annexure A7 objection dated 18.2.2018, which according to him was not considered and Annexure A8 notification dated 5.5.2018 was published in the category of Assistant Executive Engineer. When the list of Assistant Executive Engineers to be promoted as Executive Engineers was circulated on 31.8.2018, the original applicant has submitted Annexure A11 representation dated 22.5.2019, objecting to the seniority assigned in the category of Assistant Executive Engineer. The Government had issued Annexure A13 proceedings dated 14.10.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner for higher rank in the said seniority list in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The Government had issued Annexure A13 proceedings dated 14.10.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner for higher rank in the said seniority list in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. It has been held that the initial seniority of the petitioner in the entry level of Asst.Engineer was fixed on the basis of his joining time as he had not joined within three months’ time limit and his request for further joining time was declined, but after having granted ten days’s time as last chance for joining duty etc, the seniority can be determined, only w.e.f. 16.1.2003, the date on which he had joined duty in the entry level post as per the PSC advise, as envisaged in Proviso to Rule 27 (c) of KS & SSR Part II. It is this proceedings at Annexure A13, that is under challenge in this case. 4. At the outset it has been noted that the petitioner has no case that he has made any objections to Annexure R1(a) dated 23.12.2002 or the provisional seniority list in the entry level post of Assistant Engineer and the revised final seniority list of Asst. Engineers, which was published as per Annexure A5 dated 22.4.2014. 5. From the reading of reference No.11 in Annexure A5 order dated 22.4.2014, it can be seen that the provisional seniority list in the entry level post of Assistant Engineer was published as early on 15.12.2007. The Tribunal has made a definite fact finding that there are no pleadings in the OA to even suggest that, the applicant, who had entered service on 16.1.2003, had at any time objected to the seniority position assigned in Annexure R1(a) dated 23.12.2002 or to the seniority list in the entry level post of Assistant Engineer at any time before Annexure A7 order dated 18.2.2018. 6. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held, as per the decision of the Apex Court as in [K.R.Mudgal and Others v. R.P.Singh and others (AIR 1986 SC 3086)] that where seniority position, is remained unchallenged for a reasonable time cannot be unsettled and disturbed later and that three to four years would be a reasonable time in that regard in the absence of any prescriptions by the rule. 7. 7. In the instant case, we are apprised that Rule 27 B of KS & SSR Part II has been introduced in the statutory book as per SRO No.383/1993 w.e.f.2.3.1993. Rule 27 B of Part II of KS & SSR provides as follows: "27 B. In case of disputes regarding seniority and matters connected with it by reason of any order of Government or any order of an authority subordinate to Government, representations for reconsideration of such order shall be submitted to Government by the aggrieved person within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order, or the date of publication of the order in the Kerala Gazette, whichever is later. 8. A mere reading of the provisions contained in Rule 27B of KS & SSR Part II clearly indicate that in the case of disputes regarding seniority and matters connected with it by reason of any order of Government or any order of an authority subordinate to Government, representations for reconsideration of such order shall be submitted to Government by aggrieved persons within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order, or the date of publication of the order in the Kerala Gazette, whichever is later. 9. In the instant case, it can be seen that the seniority position has been stipulated in Annexure R1 (a) dated 23.12.2002 and provisional seniority list in the category of Assistant Engineers was duly published on 15.12.2007 as referred to in Item No.11 of Annexure A5 order and the final seniority list in the category of Assistant Engineers was also published as per Annexure A5 on 22.4.2014. The main dispute raised by the petitioner is with respect to his seniority position in the entry level post of Assistant Engineer. That being so, petitioner should have filed a representation for highlighting his grievances before the competent authority, at least within a period of six months from the issuance of Annexure R1 (a) dated 23.12.2002 or provisional seniority list dated 15.12.2007 or at least within six months from the issuance of Annexure A5 seniority list dated 22.4.2014. 10. Indisputably the said remedy has not been availed by the petitioner. 10. Indisputably the said remedy has not been availed by the petitioner. Hence, by the lapse of time, the petitioner cannot be permitted to disturb the seniority position that has prevailed in the entry level post of Assistant Engineer, by filing representation as against the seniority position in the next higher category post of Assistant Executive Engineer. This is especially because, the main complaint of the petitioner is that his seniority position in the entry level post of Assistant Engineer should have been fixed on the basis of the date of effective advise memo issued by the PSC as envisaged in Rule 27 (c) of KS & SSR Part II and not on the basis of his joining time as envisaged in Proviso to Rule 27 (c) of KS & SSR Part II. On this sole ground, the pleas of the petitioner for revision of the seniority cannot be acceded to. However, since submissions have been made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the basis of the provisions contained in Rule 27(c) of KS& SSR Part II, we have also adverted to and considered such contentions as well. 11. As indicated herein above, the petitioner was advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Asst. Enginneer in PWD, as per Annexure A1 memo dated 31.12.2001, he was offered appointment order by the appointing authority as per Annexure A2 order dated 28.6.2002. Annexure A1 proceedings dated 23.12.2002 is the order passed by the State Government rejecting his plea ie. his seniority be fixed under Rule 27 (c). Operative portion of Annexure R1 (a) rejection order dated 23.12.2002 read as follows: "I am to invite to your attention to the reference cited and to inform you that your request for extension of joining time cannot be sanctioned as per rules and hence the request is rejected. It is also informed that no further request to reconsider the decision will be entertained. I am therefore, to request you to join duty within ten days from the date of receipt of the communication. It is also informed that no further request to reconsider the decision will be entertained. I am therefore, to request you to join duty within ten days from the date of receipt of the communication. It is further intimated that your seniority will be reckoned only under Proviso to rule 27 (c) of the General rules if your actual date of joining duty is beyond the period of three months from the date of appointment order as stipulated in the above rule irrespective of the dae of receipt of the communication rejecting the request for extension of joining time." 12. Rule 27 (c) of Part II KS & SSR and its Proviso provides as follows: "27(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a 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 class, category or grade 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. Provided that the seniority of candidates who have been granted extension of time to join duty beyond three months from the date of the appointment order, except those who are undergoing courses of study or training which are prescribed as essential qualification for he post to which they are advised for appointment, shall be determined by the date of their joining duty;" 13. Both sides have also referred to Government Circular dated 28.6.2010 which deals with the guidelines in relation to the matters covered by Rule 27 (c) and its Proviso. The relevant portion of the Government Circular dated 28.6.2000 reads as follows: XX XXX XXX (2) Joining time upto 45 days can be granted by the Appointing Authorities in deserving cases, on request. XXX XXX XXX (4) The applications, if any, for extension of joining time beyond 45 days should be submitted to Government by the candidates though the Appointing Authority within 45 days from the date of the appointment order. XXX XXX XXX (4) The applications, if any, for extension of joining time beyond 45 days should be submitted to Government by the candidates though the Appointing Authority within 45 days from the date of the appointment order. XX XX XXXX (7) While rejecting the request for extension of joining time beyond 45 days, the candidate will be informed that no further request to consider the decision will be entertained. As ten days time is allowed to join duty, he will be further intimated tha his seniority will be reckoned only under Proviso to Rule 27 (c) of the General Rules, if his actual dae of joining duty is beyond the period of three months from the date of appointment order as stipulated in the above rule, irrespective of the date/date of receipt of the communication rejecting the request for extension of joining time." 14. The operative portion of Rule 27 (c) of Part II KS & SSR mandates that notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a 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 class, category or grade 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. 15. The Proviso thereto clearly provides that the seniority of candidates who have been granted extension of time to join duty beyond three months from the date of the appointment order, except those who are undergoing courses of study or training which are prescribed as essential qualification for the post to which they are advised for appointment, shall be determined by the date of their joining duty. 16. In the instant case Annexure A2 appointment order was issued on 28.6.2002. The appointment order would have been served on the petitioner within a week thereafter. Therefore, three months statutory limit envisaged in the Proviso to Rule 27 (c) of KS & SSR Part II would have expired in the first week of October 2002. The petitioner has submitted the request for extension of time as per representation dated 6.9.2002. The appointment order would have been served on the petitioner within a week thereafter. Therefore, three months statutory limit envisaged in the Proviso to Rule 27 (c) of KS & SSR Part II would have expired in the first week of October 2002. The petitioner has submitted the request for extension of time as per representation dated 6.9.2002. The same has been rejected by the Government as per Annexure R1 (a) dated 23.12.2002, but a relaxation of ten days’ time from the date of receipt of the communication of that order to join duty has been granted there and the specific condition that his seniority will be regulated in terms of Proviso to Rule 27 (c) of KS& SSR Part II. 17. The main contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a mere reading of Annexure R1 (a) order dated 23.12.2002 would clearly indicate that the main request of the petitioner for extension of time has been rejected by the Government and further crucially he would contend that the Proviso to Rule 27 (c) would come into play, only if the request for joining time is allowed by the Government, and that in the instant case, the main request of the petitioner has been rejected by the Government as per Annexure R1 (a) dated 23.12.2002 that his seniority position would be regulated by the operative portion of Rule 27 (c) and not by its proviso. 18. At first blush, the said contention raised by the petitioner appears to be quite attractive. However, we are not persuaded to accept that contention as tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is for the simple reason that a mere reading of Annexure R1 (a) would indicate that though the Government has disallowed the main plea of the petitioner for larger extension of time, the Government in discretion has given 10 days time to the petitioner as per Annexure R1 (a) to join duty, presumably as last chance. The petitioner has availed the said facility and has joined duty thereafter on 16.1.2003. The petitioner has availed the said facility and has joined duty thereafter on 16.1.2003. In a case where the advised candidate does not join duty after the three months’ time limit and also the Government rejects plea for extension of time, and no further relaxation of any further time is granted thereby, then the appointing authority is under the legal obligation to cancel the appointment order and to report the vacancy to which the said candidate has been advised as a "Non Joining Duty" vacancy (NJD) to the Public Service Commission who will then advise the next eligible candidate to that vacancies. Thereupon, the PSC is also legally obliged to advice another candidate from the rank list in question to the said NJD vacancy in lieu of the earlier advised candidates. 19. In the instant case, though the Government has disallowed the larger plea of the petitioner for extension of time, the Government in its said discretion has given to the petitioner, ten days’ time to join duty. This is a case where the petitioner had not joined duty either within the time limit originally stipulated in the appointment order, or by any further extension, that would have been given by the appointing authority subordinate to the Government and after the expiry of three months’ time limit, the Government has also not allowed the plea for further extension of time, but has given ten days’ time as last chance to the petitioner to join duty. The Government has given ten days time to join duty and therefore, the case would certainly be covered by the Proviso to Rule 27 (c) in any view of the matter. If the time extension plea has been rejected in toto, then the appointment order of such candidate would be cancelled to facilitate reporting of that NJD vacancy to the PSC and then there is no question of the candidate continuing in service. 20. A reading of the Proviso to Rule 27 (c) would make it clear that the said Proviso is an exception carved out from the main operative portion of the said rule. Therefore, in a case where the candidate does not join duty within the statutory outer limit of three months as envisaged in the Proviso and the Government also accedes to the extension of further time, then the case would be certainly covered by the said Proviso. Therefore, in a case where the candidate does not join duty within the statutory outer limit of three months as envisaged in the Proviso and the Government also accedes to the extension of further time, then the case would be certainly covered by the said Proviso. In the instant case, the Government has not totally rejected the plea for extension of time, but has given 10 days’ time. Therefore, certainly there is an element of Government, acceding to the request for extension of time for joining duty by a limited period of ten days; as envisaged in the Proviso to Rule 27 (c). So such a scenario will also be covered by the provision to Rule 27 (c). 21. Hence, we are of the view that Tribunal cannot be faulted for taking the considered view that the seniority of the petitioner is to be regulated in terms of the Proviso to Rule 27 (c) of Part II of KS & SSR in the facts and circumstances of the case. We have arrived at the same conclusion as arrived at by the Tribunal, but by adopting slighter different reasonings. For these reasons, we are of the view that the verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P6 does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the original petition will stand dismissed.