JUDGMENT : Viju Abraham, J. Respondents 1 to 3 in O.A. (Ekm) No.1237 of 2015 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench have filed the present Original Petition challenging Ext.P3 final order of the Tribunal dated 01.02.2021. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present O.P are as follows: The applicant entered service as L.D Clerk in the Education Department on 08.08.1988. Later the applicant passed all the departmental tests for promotion to the post of U.D Clerk. While so, the applicant availed leave without allowance for the period from 07.03.2000 to 28.01.2004. The 3rd respondent in the O.A issued an order dated 31.05.2006 promoting qualified L.D Clerk in the vacancy of U.D Clerk available up to 29.12.2004. The applicant was Serial No.35 with the assigned date of promotion as 10.03.2003. The said order dated 31.05.2006 was revised by the 3rd respondent as per Annexure-A1 proceedings dated 15.09.2006 by which all qualified L.D Clerks, who entered in service on or before 31.12.1992 and who were included in the seniority list of L.D Clerks for the period 1989-1992 or before, were ordered to be promoted as U.D Clerk. Thereupon, the applicant was ranked No.37 in the list, with the assigned date of promotion as 21.01.2003. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued Annexure-A2 provisional seniority list of U.D Clerk dated 21.07.2008 for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005 and in the said provisional seniority list the applicant was ranked 512 with the assigned date as 28.09.2002. The 2nd respondent granted 3 months time to file objection if any, to Annexure-A2 provisional list. To the knowledge of the applicant, no one objected against the rank assigned to the applicant within the time stipulated in Annexure-A2. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent in the O.A issued Annexure-A3 final seniority list on 03.08.2009 in which the applicant was ranked No.507 with the assigned date as 19.10.2001. As the applicant was promoted pursuant to Annexure-A1 proceedings as early as in 2006, his seniority was settled as per Annexures-A2 and A3. While so, the applicant received Annexure-A4 notice dated 05.07.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent in the O.A intimating that a personal hearing will be conducted on the complaint filed by one Balachandran regarding the seniority assigned to the applicant. The appellant obtained Annexure-A5, a copy of the alleged complaint filed by one Balachandran, UD Clerk, Thodannur as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The appellant obtained Annexure-A5, a copy of the alleged complaint filed by one Balachandran, UD Clerk, Thodannur as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act. It is contended that the said complainant Sri. Balachandran is a fictitious person and no such person by the name Balachandran is included in Annexure-A2 or A3 seniority list. Thereupon, the applicant submitted a reply dated 20.07.2012 before the 2nd respondent. It was further contended on the strength of Annexure-A6 reply received from the Asst. Education Officer, Thodannur that no such employee by the name Balachandran was working as a U.D Clerk in the said office during February 2012. The attendance register from the AEO’s office during February and July 2012 obtained by the applicant also showed that no employee by the name Balachandran has signed the attendance register. The said complainant Sri. Balachandran did not appear for the hearing conducted on 20.07.2012. Based on the above materials it was contended that the complaint was lodged by a fictitious person. The 2nd and 3rd respondents in the O.A purported to be acting on Annexure-A5 complaint, issued Annexure-A7 order dated 20.12.2013 whereby promotions were ordered overlooking the claim of the applicant that too without revising the date assigned to the applicant in Annexure-A3 final seniority list and without issuing any orders after the hearing conducted pursuant to Annexure-A4 notice. It was contended that in Annexure -A7, Serial Nos. 36 to 40 are juniors to the applicant in the cadre of UDC and their rank numbers in Annexure-A7 are from 508 to 512. Aggrieved by Annexure-A7, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Government and thereafter approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A (Ekm) No.35 of 2014, seeking expeditious disposal of the appeal filed challenging Ext.A7. The Tribunal as per Annexure-A8 order dated 13.03.2014 disposed of the matter with a direction to the Government to consider and pass orders on the said appeal within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In compliance with the direction in Annexure-A8 order passed by the Tribunal, Annexure-A9 hearing notice dated 05.05.2014 was issued by the Government and while the said proceeding was pending, the 2nd respondent in the O.A issued Annexure-A10 order dated 19.05.2014 revising the seniority of the applicant from rank no. 507 to 956A. In compliance with the direction in Annexure-A8 order passed by the Tribunal, Annexure-A9 hearing notice dated 05.05.2014 was issued by the Government and while the said proceeding was pending, the 2nd respondent in the O.A issued Annexure-A10 order dated 19.05.2014 revising the seniority of the applicant from rank no. 507 to 956A. Aggrieved by Annexure-A10, the applicant preferred Annexure-A11 appeal dated 17.06.2014 before the Government and the Tribunal as per Annexure-A12 order dated 18.07.2014 in O.A. (Ekm) No.379 of 2014 directed the Government to consider and pass orders on Annexure-A11 appeal within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the direction in Annexure-A12 order passed by the Tribunal, the Government issued Annexure-A13 order dated 30.03.2015 rejecting the appeal whereby Annexure-A10 order passed by the Director of Public Instruction was ratified and held that the authorities were only curing a mistake. It is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure-A13 the applicant has approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal filing O.A.(Ekm) No.1237 of 2015 seeking to set aside Annexure-A13 issued by the 1st respondent and also for a direction to restore the seniority assigned in Annexure-A3 rank list i.e., rank No.507 with assigned date in the cadre of UDC. 3. A reply statement was filed by the 1st respondent in the O.A stating that a complaint was received from one Balachandran, U.D Clerk, complaining that the date of promotion assigned to the applicant is wrong as he had availed LWA from 07.03.2000 to 28.01.2004 and on verification, it was found that the applicant was on leave without allowance at the time of his promotion as U.D Clerk. Therefore, the seniority of the applicant was revised to the date on which he rejoined duty after the leave. The appeal filed by the applicant was disposed of only after examining the matter in detail and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The period of leave without allowance is not countable for any service benefits. It is only by a mistake on the part of the controlling officer that the applicant was granted promotion w.e.f. 19.10.2001 and was assigned the rank No.507 in the seniority list. When the said mistake was brought to the notice of the authorities necessary corrective action was taken and the applicant’s seniority was reassigned based on his eligibility. It is only by a mistake on the part of the controlling officer that the applicant was granted promotion w.e.f. 19.10.2001 and was assigned the rank No.507 in the seniority list. When the said mistake was brought to the notice of the authorities necessary corrective action was taken and the applicant’s seniority was reassigned based on his eligibility. It is also contended that as per Rule 27B of Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules 1958, the Government has ample power to modify settled seniority and to ratify any action taken by the authorities in this regard. The Government has vested power to review a settled seniority and in the said circumstance, the principles of sit back theory do not arise and therefore prayed for dismissal of the O.A. 4. The Tribunal after considering the various contentions raised by both sides held that the complaint as against the assignment of seniority to the applicant is a bogus one and therefore Annexure-A10 order issued by the 2nd respondent in the O.A is totally without any jurisdiction as the said authority has no power to interfere with the final seniority list published long ago. The Tribunal also held that the power of the Government under Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR can be exercised by the Government only on a representation submitted by an aggrieved party within 6 months of the publication of the seniority list and therefore, in the absence of such representation the Government has no power to revise a final seniority list. Holding so, the Tribunal set aside Annexure-A10 and A13 orders and declared that the applicant is entitled to retain his rank and seniority as settled in Annexure-A3 final seniority list. 5. It is aggrieved by the said order dated 01.02.2021 in O.A. (Ekm) No.1237 of 2015 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal that the present original petition is filed. 6. We have heard the learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 7. The issue that is to be decided is as to whether Annexure-A10 order issued by the 2nd petitioner, Director of Public Instruction, and Annexure-A13 order of the 1st petitioner, Government ratifying the same invoking Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR are in accordance with the law. 7. The issue that is to be decided is as to whether Annexure-A10 order issued by the 2nd petitioner, Director of Public Instruction, and Annexure-A13 order of the 1st petitioner, Government ratifying the same invoking Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR are in accordance with the law. For a proper consideration of the issues involved, it is profitable to extract Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR, which reads as follows: “27B. 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. (underline supplied) A bare reading of the said Rule shows that in case of a dispute regarding seniority and matters connected with it by reason of any order of Government or any order of an authority subordinate to the Government, representations for reconsideration of such order shall be submitted to the Government by the aggrieved person within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order or the date of publication of the order in the Kerala Gazette, whichever is later. Going by the said Rule, a decision on any such representation could be taken only by the Government that too on a complaint by an aggrieved person submitted within 6 months from the date of receipt of the order. It is also pertinent to note that in Annexure-A2 provisional list published by the Director of Public Instruction dated 21.07.2008 it is provided that any person aggrieved by any omission and ranking etc., in the said seniority list can file an appeal petition within 3 months and further that any appeal petition received after the expiry of the time allowed will not be considered under any circumstance. It is an admitted case that no complaint whatsoever was submitted after the publication of Annexure-A2 provisional seniority list and it is only thereafter that Annexure-A3 final seniority list was published on 03.08.2009. 8. It is an admitted case that no complaint whatsoever was submitted after the publication of Annexure-A2 provisional seniority list and it is only thereafter that Annexure-A3 final seniority list was published on 03.08.2009. 8. The final seniority list was published as early as 03.08.2009 and it is long thereafter, i.e., in 2012, that Annexure-A4 notice dated 05.07.2012 was issued to the applicant, based on a complaint by one Balachandran alleging that a wrong seniority is assigned to him. Further that the seniority of the applicant was revised based on the said complaint as per Annexure-A10 order only on 19.05.2014, i.e., almost about 5 years after the finalisation of the seniority list. The specific case of the applicant is that Annexure-A5 complaint is a bogus one and Shri. Balachandran who has submitted the same is a fictitious person. In Annexure-A5 complaint the complainant Balachandran is shown as a U.D Clerk working in Thodannur. It has come out in evidence as per Annexure-A6 information obtained as per the Right to Information Act that there is no employee by the name Balachandran working as U.D Clerk in the office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Thodannur. It is also on record that there is no person by the name Balachandran included in Annexure-A2 and A3 seniority list. It is also pertinent to note that the said Balachandran did not appear for the hearing conducted by the Director of Public Instruction on 20.07.2012 to enquire into the allegation raised by him in Annexure-A5 representation. In the proceedings before the Tribunal also even though notice was issued to the said Balachandran in the address shown in Annexure-A5 representation, the same was returned with an endorsement “not known”. From this, it is evident that Annexure-A5 complaint is a bogus one submitted in the name of a fictitious person. In view of the above, the Director of Public Instruction and the Government ought not to have acted on Annexure-A5 complaint in as much as Government can issue orders invoking the power under Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR only on a complaint/representation submitted by an aggrieved person. The said Balachandran, by no stretch of imagination, be treated as a person aggrieved by the seniority position granted to the applicant in Annexure-A3 final seniority list of U.D Clerk. 9. The said Balachandran, by no stretch of imagination, be treated as a person aggrieved by the seniority position granted to the applicant in Annexure-A3 final seniority list of U.D Clerk. 9. Admittedly, Annexure-A3 final seniority list was published as early as 03.08.2009, whereas Annexure-A4 notice of hearing was issued only on 05.07.2012. Further, the seniority has been revised as per Annexure-A10 order only on 19.05.2014. Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR specifically mandates that any dispute regarding seniority etc. can be considered by the Government only if a representation/petition is submitted within 6 months from the date of receipt of the order, or the date of publication of the order in the Kerala Gazette, whichever is later. Annexure-A4 notice of hearing based on the so-called complaint filed by Balachandran was issued to the applicant almost 3 years after the finalisation of Annexure-A3 seniority list and the seniority has been revised as per Annexure-A10 only on 19.05.2014. Therefore, we are of the view that no challenge has been made against the final seniority list within the time stipulated as per the Rules. 10. The next aspect for consideration is whether the 2nd petitioner, the Director of Public Instruction, is empowered to issue Annexure-A10 order, whereby the seniority of the applicant was revised from Rank No. 507 to 956A. The contention taken in the reply statement is that Government has ample power to modify the settled seniority list or to ratify the action of the Director of Public Instructions invoking the power under Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR. It is only the Government that is empowered to issue an order invoking power under Rule 27B that too only on a representation submitted by an aggrieved person within 6 months from the date of the order. In the present case, Annexure-A10 has been issued by the Director of Public Instruction, who has absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to issue an order invoking Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR, which is in the exclusive domain of the Government. What has been stated in Annexure-A10 is that the Director of Public Instruction has been directed by the Government to finalise the issue regarding seniority and by Annexure-A13 order issued in an appeal file by the applicant, the Government ratified the action of the Director of Public Instruction. What has been stated in Annexure-A10 is that the Director of Public Instruction has been directed by the Government to finalise the issue regarding seniority and by Annexure-A13 order issued in an appeal file by the applicant, the Government ratified the action of the Director of Public Instruction. As per Rule, Government is the authority to decide on any dispute regarding seniority and we feel that the action of the Government empowering the Director of Public Instruction to decide on a matter on which Government alone has power as per Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR and the further action of the Government in ratifying the decision of the Director of Public Instruction contained in Annexure-A10, that too in an appeal filed by the applicant challenging Annexure-A10, is not the proper procedure to be adopted by the Government. The Apex Court in The Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan reported in (A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1582) was considering the validity of a departmental proceeding initiated by an authority which was delegated with power not in accordance with the statute and the effect of ratification of the said decision later by the original authority and the Court held that the disciplinary action initiated and the punishment imposed are not sustainable as the resolution delegating power was not in harmony with statutory requirement and that the subsequent ratification of the action does not have any application as the statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power conferred and that the said action cannot be validated by subsequent ratification. Paragraphs 22, 26, and 29 of the said judgment reads as follows: “22. The other infirmity in the said resolution goes deeper than what it appears. The resolution was not in harmony with the statutory requirement. Section 84 of the Act provides for delegation of powers and it states that any officer or authority of the University may by order, delegate his or its power (except power to make Ordinance and Regulations) to any other officer or authority subject to provisions of the Act and Statutes. Section 24(1) (xli) provides for delegation of power by the Executive Council. It states that the Executive Council may delegate any of its power (except power to make Ordinances) to the Vice-Chancellor or to any other officer subject to the approval of the Chancellor (underlining is ours). Section 24(1) (xli) provides for delegation of power by the Executive Council. It states that the Executive Council may delegate any of its power (except power to make Ordinances) to the Vice-Chancellor or to any other officer subject to the approval of the Chancellor (underlining is ours). The approval of the Chancellor is mandatory, without such approval the power cannot be delegated to the Vice-Chancellor. The record does not reveal that the approval of the Chancellor was ever obtained. Therefore, the resolution which was not in conformity with the statutory requirement could not confer power on the Vice-Chancellor to take action against the respondent. ,,,,,,,,,,,, 26. These principles of ratification, apparently do not have any application with regard to exercise of powers conferred under statutory provisions. The statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power conferred and any action without power has no legal validity. It is ab initio void and cannot be ratified. ,, ,, ,, ,,,, ,, 29. These observations again are of little assistance to us since we have already held that there was no proper delegation of power to the Vice-Chancellor to take disciplinary action against the respondent. There was no Subsequent delegation either. Therefore, neither the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor, nor the ratification by the Executive Council could be sustained.” (underline supplied) The Apex Court to come to the said conclusions also referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board (1953) 1 All ER. 1113, the relevant portion of which reads thus: Next, it was suggested that even if the board could not delegate their functions, at any rate, they could ratify the actions of the port manager, but, if the board have no power to delegate their functions to the port manager, they can have no power to ratify what he has already done. The effect of ratification is to make it equal to a prior command, but as a prior command, in the shape of delegation, would be useless, so also is a ratification. Therefore, Annexure-A10 order of the Director of Public Instruction and the ratification of the said order by the Government as per Annexure-A13 that too in an appeal filed by the applicant challenging Annexure-A10 are clearly unsustainable. 11. Therefore, Annexure-A10 order of the Director of Public Instruction and the ratification of the said order by the Government as per Annexure-A13 that too in an appeal filed by the applicant challenging Annexure-A10 are clearly unsustainable. 11. H.W.R Wade in “Administrative Law” 6th Edition discussed the parameters relevant for consideration for a judicial forum to invalidate an order and we feel, it is profitable to extract the relevant paragraph in page No.352, which reads thus: “The truth of the matter is that the court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the court may refuse to quash it because of the plaintiff's lack of standing, because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has waived his rights, or for some other legal reason. In any such case the 'void' order remains effective and is, in reality, valid. It follows that an order may be void for one purpose and valid for another, and that it may be void against one person but valid against another. A common case where an order, however void, becomes valid is where a statutory time limit expires after which its validity cannot be questioned. The statute does not say that the void order shall be valid; but by cutting off legal remedies it produces that result.” (underline supplied) Above quoted principle is very much applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as Annexure-A5 complaint was submitted by a fictitious person and Annexure-A10 order has been issued by an authority not competent to issue such an order invoking powers under Rule 27B of Part II of KS & SSR. Even though these aspects were brought to the notice of the Government as per Annexure-A11 petition, without properly considering any of these aspects, the Government ratified Annexure-A10 order passed by the Director of Public Instruction. 12. Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR prescribes a time limit of 6 months from the date of order for challenging the same and AnnexureA4 notice of hearing based on Annexure-A5 bogus complaint was issued almost about 3 years after the finalisation of the seniority list as per Annexure-A3. Further, the seniority has been revised as per Annexure-A10 only on 19.05.2014. Further, the seniority has been revised as per Annexure-A10 only on 19.05.2014. Therefore the seniority settled as per Annexure-A3 dated 02.08.2009 has been unsettled on 19.05.2014 as per Annexure-A10 order of the Director of Public Instruction, i.e., after almost 5 years. A similar issue was considered by the Apex Court in State of Punjab And Others v. Gurdev Singh (1991) 4 SCC 1 and after elaborately considering the principles of law involved in the matter held as follows: “10. It will be clear from these principles, the party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach the court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the court within the prescribed period of limitation. If the statutory time limit expires the court cannot give the declaration sought for.” 13. The Apex Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others v. State of Orissa and Others (2010) 12 SCC 471 while considering a challenge against the assigned seniority, held that a seniority list that remained in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed and that any person who agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation. In Shiba Shankar Mohapatra case (supra) the Apex Court was laying down the parameters for entertaining a challenge against seniority settled long back. It is pertinent to note that the case in hand is governed by Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR which specifically laid down the procedure for considering any disputes regarding seniority and matters connected with it and therefore the same could be done only in the manner prescribed in the said Rules. In the present case, none of the parameters for invocation of Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR is satisfied and the authorities ought not to have unsettled the seniority finalised long before. A Full Bench of this court in Pavithran v. State of Kerala, 2009 (4) KLT 20 (F.B.) have held that whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, unless the same is challenged before the appropriate forum, within the prescribed time limit, the said order will become final and the person, affected by, will also be bound by it. A Full Bench of this court in Pavithran v. State of Kerala, 2009 (4) KLT 20 (F.B.) have held that whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, unless the same is challenged before the appropriate forum, within the prescribed time limit, the said order will become final and the person, affected by, will also be bound by it. In the present case, there is no complaint as such in the eye of law in as much as Annexure-A5 was submitted by a fictitious person that too almost 3 years after the issuance of the order and there is also no explanation for the delay and laches in submitting the same within the time limit. The Director of Public Instruction as well as the Government ought to have considered these relevant aspects and rejected the plea made in Annexure-A5 and should not have disturbed the seniority of the applicant which is settled years back. The authorities ought to have taken into consideration the fact that none of the affected persons have filed any objection to Annexure-A2 provisional seniority list or have challenged the decision of the department in finalising the seniority list as per Annexure-A3. 14. It is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that a person who enjoyed a seniority position for quite some time is entitled to sit back. The Apex Court in Rabindranath Bose and Others v. Union of India and Others (1970) 1 SCC 84 held as follows: “33.…............It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person 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 number of years”. (underline supplied) Annexure-A3 final seniority list was published as early as on 03.08.2009 and the said seniority is finalised after publishing a provisional seniority list and inviting objections if any to the same. There were no objections to the rank and seniority assigned to the applicant in the provisional seniority list. There was no objection to Annexure-A3 final seniority list also by any of the aggrieved person except a bogus complaint submitted as Annexure A5, that too almost 3 years after the finalisation of the seniority list. None of these aspects were considered by the Director of Public Instruction and the Government while issuing the impugned orders. There was no objection to Annexure-A3 final seniority list also by any of the aggrieved person except a bogus complaint submitted as Annexure A5, that too almost 3 years after the finalisation of the seniority list. None of these aspects were considered by the Director of Public Instruction and the Government while issuing the impugned orders. Moreover, the review of the seniority based on Annexure-A5 complaint was undertaken by the Director of Public Instruction, who has no authority to take a decision invoking Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR. The Government also lost sight of these aspects while issuing Annexure-A13 order ratifying Annexure-A10 decision of the Director of Public Instruction. 15. The Tribunal considered all these aspects in detail and took a view that Annexures-A10 and A13 orders are against law and set aside the same declaring that the applicant is entitled to retain his rank and seniority as settled in Annexure-A3 final seniority list. We find no reason to interfere with the detailed and well-considered order passed by the Tribunal. OP(KAT) No.348 of 2021 is devoid of any merit, and it is accordingly dismissed.