ORDER : 1. Heard learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Harnahalli, appearing for Sri Anoop Harnahalli, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2020 by which order the Tribunal was pleased to club three sets of applications and was pleased to dispose of the same by the common order. 3. The applicants in the three sets of applications have called in question the direct recruitment of the private respondents therein from various other departments into the department of Stamps and Registration. The instant writ petition is by respondent No.3 in application Nos.8854-57/2018. This court is not dealing with the merits of the other two sets of applications. 4. Necessary facts are that the petitioner-Smt Sulochana K.R participated in the selection process conducted by the Government and qualified as such to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police and came to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in the Police Department, Mysore on 23.10.2010 and that there is no dispute with regard to this aspect of the matter. During her tenure in the Police Department as Sub Inspector, the petitioner suffered loss of hearing in her right ear resulting in gradual loss of hearing and the medical certificate produced as Annexure-C certifies loss of hearing at 58.3 decibels of the right ear and 18.3 decibels in the left ear. The said medical certificate is also not disputed by either the State or the applicants. In the light of this disability, the petitioner made an application on 1.6.2016 invoking the provisions of Rule 16 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short the Recruitment Rules of 1977) seeking for permanent appointment in the department of Stamps and Registration at a lower pay scale. Rule 16 of the aforesaid Rules is extracted : "16. Rule 16 of the aforesaid Rules is extracted : "16. Relaxation of rules relating to appointment and qualifications:-Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, the Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing- (a) appointment to a post (i) ****** (ii) an officer holding a post of an equivalent grade by transfer or by deputation from any other services of the State for recruitment to which these rules apply: Provided that appointment by transfer under this sub-clause shall not be made unless the officer has passed the examination prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) Rules, 1974 for the post to which he is proposed to be transferred; Provided further that where it is necessary in public interest to appoint an officer belonging to a service which has no equivalent grade, an officer holding a post in the next lower grade in such service may be appointed by deputation for a period not exceeding two years: Provided also that no such appointment shall be to a post which is equivalent to or higher than the next promotional post to such officer in such other service. (iii) an officer who by bodily infirmity is permanently incapacitated for the post which he holds, Provided that appointment under this sub- clause shall not be:- (1) to a post lower than that held by such officer save with his consent; (2) to a post higher than the post held by such officer except when the Government is of the opinion that there is no other equivalent post to which such officer can be appointed;" Reading of Rule 16 of the said Rules would demonstrate that the Special Rules have been legislated enabling direct recruitment by way of transfer or deputation from any other service of the State subject to the condition that the above Recruitment Rules also apply to the said recruitment rules. Clause(iii) of Rule 16 of the Rules provides for appointment of a person who has suffered bodily infirmity and is permanently incapacitated to the post. The proviso though prohibits posting of a person to a lower post but the same is exempted in the event the Government servants consents to the same. Clause(iii) of Rule 16 of the Rules provides for appointment of a person who has suffered bodily infirmity and is permanently incapacitated to the post. The proviso though prohibits posting of a person to a lower post but the same is exempted in the event the Government servants consents to the same. Insofar as bodily infirmity and incapacity is concerned, no serious dispute is raised by the applicants nor has the Tribunal negatived the same. 5. After much back and forth, the State Government relented and the case of the petitioner was accepted and direct recruitment of the petitioner by way of transfer from the Police Department to Stamps and Registration Department was approved on 14.7.2017 and orders of appointment came to be issued on 19.9.2018. Aggrieved by the said order of appointment dated 19.9.2018, the applicants i.e., respondents No.3 to 6 approached the Tribunal. 6. Before the Tribunal, the primary and solitary ground that was canvassed was with regard to the maintainability of the petition and that the recruitment and appointment of the petitioner herein has seriously impinged upon their promotional prospects and their right of promotion has been prejudiced and on that ground, the challenge to the appointment of the petitioner was mounted. In support of their case, they have also placed reliance on the rulings reported in (2011) 11 SCC 374, (1999) 7 SCC 209 , (1992) 1 SCC 335 , ILR 1987 KAR 432, (2019) 10 SCC 34 and (2014) 3 SCC 670 . 7. On a perusal of the application pleadings, we see that they have described themselves as First Division Assistants implying that they are not in the cadre of Sub Registrar and the order of appointment clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has been appointed as a Sub Registrar. 8. In this background, we have queried learned counsel for the respondents about the maintainability of the application in view of the fact that what is canvassed by the applicants is that the appointment of the petitioner prejudices their promotional prospects. 9. We have perused the Recruitment Rules pertaining to the department called the Karnataka General Services (Registration and Stamps Department Recruitment) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules of 2000). 9. We have perused the Recruitment Rules pertaining to the department called the Karnataka General Services (Registration and Stamps Department Recruitment) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules of 2000). Sl.No.9 in the Schedule to Rule 3 the Rules deals with recruitment to the post of Sub Registrar and it reads as under : Sl No. Category of posts, scale of pay No. of posts Method of Recruitment Minimum Qualification (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 9. Sub-Registrar (Rs.4575- 8400) 164 --- --- Fifty percent by direct recruitment and fifty percent by promotion from the cadre of First Division Assistants and Stenographers, in the ratio of 48:2, every twenty-fifth and fiftieth vacancy being filled by promotion of a Stenographer. For Direct Recruitment-Must be holder of a degree of a recognised university or possess equivalent qualification. For Promotion Must have put in a service of not less than five years in the cadre specified in column(4) In case of stenographer must have worked as First Division Assistant for a period of not less than one year in addiction to the period of five years specified above. From the reading of the above, it is seen that the Recruitment Rules, 2000, provides for appointment to the post of Sub Registrar by way of direct recruitment to the extent of 50% of the sanctioned post and the remaining 50% to be filled up by way of promotion. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner is under the 'direct recruitment quota' and the applicants can only eye the post reserved under the 'promotional quota'. 10. As on the date of appointment of the petitioner, the applicants were not even in the zone of consideration for the post of Sub Registrar. The futuristic or mere chance to be promoted could not have been considered as creating a cause of action and enabling the applicants to maintain the writ petition. They were not even born in the cadre of 'Sub Registrar' to contend by any stretch of imagination that their seniority would be affected, as admittedly the appointment of the petitioner was in the quota carved out for appointments by way of 'direct recruitment'. Hence, the applicants could not have even canvassed a case of they being affected by seniority or case of their seniority being affected as they have not even born in the post of Sub Registrar. 11. Hence, the applicants could not have even canvassed a case of they being affected by seniority or case of their seniority being affected as they have not even born in the post of Sub Registrar. 11. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal seriously erred in entertaining such hypothetical claim and clothing the applicants with locus standi to mount and sustain a challenge against the recruitment of the petitioner. It is not the case that the petitioner was ineligible or did not meet the qualifications stipulated under Rule 16 of the Special Rules i.e. the Recruitment Rules of 1977. The petitioner, otherwise being competent and qualified to be appointed, in our considered opinion, is rightly appointed and the order of appointment is without blemish. 12. The Tribunal appears to have got itself misdirected on account of the facts involved in the other two applications wherein direct allegations of malafides were made that direct recruitment of the other respondents was on account of direct political interference. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondents would place reliance on the orders passed in the writ petitions, wherein the case of the applicants in the other batch of applications are dealt with, to demonstrate their locus standi to maintain the instant writ petition. 13. As noted supra, the provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 2000 are a complete answer. The applicants being entitled to be appointed only against the 'promotional quota' and not even being born in the 'Sub Registrar quota', in our opinion, could not have maintained the writ petition on a hypothetical ground of their chances of promotion getting diminished. Admittedly, the petitioner is appointed in the quota reserved for direct recruitees and in our opinion, the appointment of the petitioner neither impinges on the promotional prospects of the respondents nor their seniority. 14. It is no more res integra that the seniority of the Government servant, all things being equal, would commence from the date on which the Government servant is born in his post. That apart, we see there is not even a plea that the applicants were to be promoted on a particular date and their promotions have been put off because of the appointment of this petitioner. Even if such plea was there, it would not have been of any avail to the applicants as the question of their promotional prospects being affected does not arise at all. Even if such plea was there, it would not have been of any avail to the applicants as the question of their promotional prospects being affected does not arise at all. Be that as it may, we have also examined the issue on merits. 15. Even on merits, the applicants are unable to demonstrate any disqualification or any other factor which would amount to an obstacle to appoint the petitioner. As noted by us, there is no dispute with regard to her appointment in the Police Department as a Sub Inspector. There is no dispute to the claim that she is suffering considerable loss of hearing and medical opinion is that it is progressive and which can safely be presumed to be an incapacity to discharge the duties in the post of the Police Sub Inspector. The Special Rules are provided for such instances and the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the provisions of Rule 16, clause (iii) and proviso to clause (iii) of the provisions to the 1977 Rules. 16. The petitioner categorically asserted her passing of the departmental examinations and she having pursued her academics in Kannada Medium also exempts her from undergoing any tests. 17. The finding of the Tribunal that there is no public interest, in the considered opinion of this Court, is incorrect. Reading of Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules of 1977 no where mandates that appointments under Rule 16 shall be made in public interest. It only mandates that reasons are required to be recorded. Annexure-K is a testament to the lengthy discussion and conclusions arrived at by the Government on the subject and therefore, it cannot be contended that the decision has been taken without application of mind. In our considered opinion, none of the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal are applicable to the facts of the instant writ petition. 18. We have closely scrutinized the reasons assigned and the Tribunal in paragraph (12) has not adjudicated the disability claimed by the petitioner as it was not disputed by either the Government or the applicants and is sought to be simply brushed aside. 18. We have closely scrutinized the reasons assigned and the Tribunal in paragraph (12) has not adjudicated the disability claimed by the petitioner as it was not disputed by either the Government or the applicants and is sought to be simply brushed aside. In paragraph (13), we find that the Tribunal has again mislead itself in holding that the appointment is under sub clause (a)(ii) of Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules of 1977 and has erred in holding that the appointment can only be to a equivalent post. It has failed to appreciate the exception provided in the proviso to clause (iii) which provides appointments to a lower post also. 19. In view of our above discussion, we find that the applications were not even maintainable and the applicants have no locus standi to initiate the challenge to the appointment as they are entitled to be considered in a quota different from that into which the petitioner was appointed. They being entitled only to the vacancy that may arise in the 'promotional quota', could not have been permitted to assail the order of appointment of the petitioner under the 'direct recruitment quota'. Concept of public interest litigation being alien to service jurisprudence, the Tribunal ought to have been more circumspect and ought to have scrutinized the claim in the light of the Recruitment Rules of 1977 and 2000. 20. In that view of the matter, the applications ought to have been rejected on the ground of lack of competence and the petition requires to succeed. 21. Accordingly, we pass the following order : (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The order of the Tribunal, impugned in this writ petition, rendered in Application Nos.8854-8857/2020 dated 19.8.2020 is hereby set aside; (iii) The order of the Tribunal quashing the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 19.9.2018 (Annexure-A9 to the application) is set aside and the same stands restored. Ordered accordingly.