JUDGMENT : P.M.Manoj, J. The writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by the issuance of Exts.P7, P10 and P13 whereby the seniority in the category of Confidential Assistant Gr.II was denied to the petitioners and thereby, they lost seniority in the grade of Confidential Assistant Gr.I. 2. The petitioners were originally appointed as L.D.Typist through Kerala Public Service Commission (‘the PSC’ for short) in April, 2008. Thereafter, the probation of both petitioners were declared during April, 2010. While continuing so, the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings for promotion to the category of Confidential Assistant Gr.II as provided in the Kerala Water and Waste Water Authority Administrative, Ministerial and Last Grade Service Rules, 1986, (‘the Special Rules’ for short), wherein it was stated that the details of Lower Division Typists working under the control of the Chief Engineer, who possesses necessary qualification shall be submitted to the office of the 1st respondent on or before 07.06.2010. 3. It is pointed out by the petitioners that as per Ext.P2 Special Rules, the post of Confidential Assistant Gr.II mentioned under serial No.27 is the promotion post of Lower Division Typist (English) and Lower Division Typist (Malayalam). It is further stated in the said Rules that only in the absence of suitable candidates for promotion, the recruitment shall be resorted to by direct recruitment. It is further contended by the petitioners that in fact the last date for submission of the list of eligible candidates for promotion from the category of LD Typist was on 07.06.2010. However, without exhausting the said list, direct recruitment was resorted to by the 1st respondent. Appointments were given to respondents 2 and 3 and thereby the 3rd respondent was given seniority with respect to her advice on 31.05.2010 and the 4th respondent was given seniority with effect from 06.07.2010. Both dates were date of effective advised by the PSC. Whereas it is contended by the petitioners that the petitioners were advised for appointment by Ext.P3 dated 30.06.2010. If respondents 2 and 3 would have been appointed after the date of completion of process as mentioned in Ext.P1, the seniority would not have been given to respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, by Ext.P7 seniority list of Confidential Assistant Gr.II as on 01.04.2013, respondents 2 and 3 and other persons advised in between were assigned seniority above the petitioners. If respondents 2 and 3 would have been appointed after the date of completion of process as mentioned in Ext.P1, the seniority would not have been given to respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, by Ext.P7 seniority list of Confidential Assistant Gr.II as on 01.04.2013, respondents 2 and 3 and other persons advised in between were assigned seniority above the petitioners. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that in fact petitioners 2 and 1 would have placed at 10 and 11 instead of 17 and 18. In this regard, the 2nd petitioner preferred Ext.P8 representation before the 1st respondent, which was rejected as per Ext.P10. 4. Against Ext.P10, the 1st petitioner preferred Ext.P11 before the 1st respondent for rectifying the anomaly and approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9346 of 2014. By judgment dated 31.10.2014, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation, preferably within the stipulated time. In compliance of the said direction, Ext.P13 was issued stating that in compliance of Rule 27(C) of Part II KS&SSR, the seniority of persons appointed for a class, category or grade in service on advice of the Commission shall unless has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advise 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 advise list. Therefore it is incontrovertible that the date of first effective advice of the PSC cannot be changed or altered and hence they are entitled for seniority on that day itself. 5. It is further clarified that as regards retrospective date of promotion by overlooking the seniority of direct recruitment is impermissible one and accordingly rejected. In this regard it is contended by the petitioners that they have entered into service as Lower Division Typists on possessing the required qualification. After completion of their period of probation, they were entitled for promotion to the post of Confidential Assistant Grade-II as prescribed under Ext.P2 Special Rules in preference to the direct recruitees. 6. In this regard it is contended by the petitioners that they have entered into service as Lower Division Typists on possessing the required qualification. After completion of their period of probation, they were entitled for promotion to the post of Confidential Assistant Grade-II as prescribed under Ext.P2 Special Rules in preference to the direct recruitees. 6. Here in the case on hand, respondents 2 and 3 are direct recruitees who were recruited along with the petitioners during 2010. It is further contended that since the vacancies of Confidential Assistant Grade-II existed even prior to the date of Ext.P1, the petitioners deserved to be promoted as Confidential Assistant Grade-II at least with effect from 18.05.2010 or from an earlier date. Despite that the promotion orders were issued only on 30.06.2010 and were belatedly dispatched on 08.07.2010. Therefore, some direct recruitees including respondents 2 and 3 were issued with an advice memo by the PSC on 06.07.2010 as seen in Ext.P7. It is the deliberate failure on the part of the 1st respondent to offer promotion to the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Confidential Assistant Grade-II in preference to the direct recruitees. The same is illegal and against Ext.P2 Special Rules. Moreover, it caused substantial prejudice to the petitioners. Thereby candidates directly recruited against the mandates prescribed under Ext.P2 were given seniority above the petitioners. 7. In support of the arguments, the petitioners produced the reported judgment in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and Another v. State of Assam and Others [2012 KHC 4697]. Paragraph 33 of the said judgment reads as under: “33. Recently, in State of Haryana and Others v. Vijaya Singh and Others, 2012 (8) SCC 633 , the question arose with regard to the fixation of seniority in the backdrop of ad hoc initial appointment made de hors the statutory rules but later on services were regularised by the State Government. The Court took note of the fact that the respondents therein were neither appointed by the competent authority on the recommendations made by the Board which was constituted by the Governor of Haryana nor were they placed on probation as required under the rules and, therefore, their ad hoc period could not be counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority. Thus, emphasis was laid that when appointment is made without following the procedure prescribed under the rules, the appointees are not entitled to have the seniority fixed on the basis of the total length of service. In essence, it has been ruled that when the appointment is made de hors the rules, the appointee cannot claim seniority even if his appointment is later on regularised.” 8. In the case on hand, it is the contention of the petitioners that since the appointment given to respondents 2 and 3 in violation of the conditions prescribed in Ext.P2 special rules, seniority cannot be assigned because the direct recruitment can be resorted to only when the majority of candidates under the promotion quota is exhausted. Here, even prior to giving promotion orders to the petitioners who are eligible candidates to be promoted to the category of Confidential Assistant Gr.II, respondents 2 and 3 were given appointments on the basis of advice given to them. 9. Further, on the strength of the reported decision in Union of India and Another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others [2010 KHC 4169], the Apex Court held in paragraphs 37 and 38 are as under; “37. The Court must keep in mind the Constitutional obligation of both the appellants/Central Government as also the State Government. Both the Central Government and the State Government are to act as model employers, which is consistent with their role in a Welfare Sate. 38. It is an accepted legal position that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Art.16 of the Constitution. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Art.16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Art.14 of the Constitution.” It is contended by the petitioners that Government in a welfare State like India is supposed to act as a model employer. It is an accepted legal position that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is an accepted legal position that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is therefore clear that legitimate expectation for being considered for promotion was defeated due to inaction on the part of the State Government in conducting cadre review in time, despite reminders from the Central Government. Thus it is contended by the petitioners that though orders were passed with respect to promotion of the petitioners as per Ext.P3 dated 30.06.2010, it is deliberately delayed to 8.07.2010 and thereby their appointment was effected after the appointment of respondents 2 and 3 or similarly situated persons. This is an arbitrary exercise of power issued by the respondents. If timely steps would have been effected pursuant to Ext.P3 order, the petitioners would have been appointed prior to respondents 2 and 3. 10. In this regard, it is also contended in support of the reported decision in Tagin Litin v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others [ (1996) 5 SCC 83 ] that only due to the delay occurred from the part of the official respondents, the petitioners were denied with seniority. 11. In response to that, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is contended by the Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners entered into service of the Kerala Water Authority as Lower Division Typist and later converted to the post of Confidential Assistant Grade II on bytransfer scheme vide Ext.P3 order. By Ext.P3 order dated 30.06.2010, the petitioners were directed to join duty within 7 days to the post of Confidential Assistant Grade II. Despite service of Ext.P3 order, the petitioners failed to join the post within the time allowed. The 1st petitioner joined in the cadre of Confidential Assistant Gr.II only on 13.07.2010 and the 2nd petitioner joined on 09.07.2010. In the meantime, the PSC has advised suitable candidates to the post of Confidential Assistant Grade-II by Direct Recruitment Scheme. Respondents 2 and 3 were advised by the PSC as direct recruitees on 31.05.2010 and 06.07.2010 respectively. The 1st petitioner joined in the cadre of Confidential Assistant Gr.II only on 13.07.2010 and the 2nd petitioner joined on 09.07.2010. In the meantime, the PSC has advised suitable candidates to the post of Confidential Assistant Grade-II by Direct Recruitment Scheme. Respondents 2 and 3 were advised by the PSC as direct recruitees on 31.05.2010 and 06.07.2010 respectively. It is further contended in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that as per Rule 27(C) of Part II of KS&SSR, the seniority is assigned to the first effective date of advice. It is further contended that as per Rule 27(a) of Part II of KS&SSR, the seniority of persons on mutual or inter unit or inter departmental transfer from one unit to another within the same department or from one department to another as the case may be, on requests from such persons shall be determined with reference to the dates of their joining duty in the new unit or department. Thereby it is contended that seniority to the petitioners will be given only from the date on which they joined in the category of Confidential Assistant Grade-II. 12. I heard Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.V.V.Joshy, learned Counsel for the respondents. 13. On considering the argument raised on both sides, it appears that Ext.P2 Special Rules provide promotion to the cadre of the Confidential Assistant Gr.II as prescribed under the method of appointment. It appears that the post of Confidential Assistant Gr.II can be filled up by promotion from the categories of Lower Division Typist (English) and Lower Division Typist (Malayalam) on considering the total service in the feeder category. In the absence of qualified hands in the feeder category, the direct recruitment can be resorted to. In this regard, the relevant provisions of Special Rule is reproduced hereunder; “27. Confidential Assistant Grade-II (i) Promotion from categories 29 and 30 considering the total service in the feeder categories, or (ii) In the absence of suitable candidates for promotion, by direct recruitment.” 14. In this respect, it is contended by the petitioners that vacancies in the category of Confidential Assistant Grade- II were available from 2008 itself and immediately on the declaration of promotion the petitioners were entitled to be promoted. The petitioners were eligible to be considered for promotion with effect from April 2010, on which declaration of probation was effected. In this respect, it is contended by the petitioners that vacancies in the category of Confidential Assistant Grade- II were available from 2008 itself and immediately on the declaration of promotion the petitioners were entitled to be promoted. The petitioners were eligible to be considered for promotion with effect from April 2010, on which declaration of probation was effected. Without looking into the provisions of Special Rules as per Ext.P2 even prior to completion of the period assigned for selecting eligible candidates under the feeder category for promotion, the direct recruitment were effected. On going by the facts of this case, such contention raised by the petitioner is having some force. It appears to be against the Special Rules as provided under Ext.P2. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondents that the seniority assigned to respondents 2 and 3 was as per Rule 27(C) Part II of the KS&SSR, cannot be accepted in the light of the decision reported in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika (supra) since the appointment given to respondents 2 and 3 and other similarly situated persons is in violation of provisions specified in Ext.P2 Special Rules. Thereby, the assignment of the seniority to them as available in Ext.P7 between serial Nos.10 to 16 is illegal. 15. As per Ext.P10 order, seven persons were promoted as Confidential Assistant Grade-II in preference to the petitioners who are supposed to assign seniority in Ext.P7 as serial Nos. 10 and 11. The contention raised with respect to Rule 27(a) in the case of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The contention by the respondents that the Rule applicable in the case of respondents 2 and 3 and similar persons are Rule 27(C) Part II of KS&SSR is also not acceptable. Such an effective seniority is applicable only in cases where the appointment to such class, category or grade in service on advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advise 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 advise list. Thereby, it is discernible from such prescription that it pertains to the persons included in a particular list inter se seniority of such incumbents decided in such manner. This is specifically clarified in the reported decision in Varghese and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [ 1981 KLT 458 ]. The inter se dispute between the direct recruitees as well as the promotees in that case, date of joining is important. That is not prescribed in Ext.P7 seniority list. Hence, in the case on hand, the appointment of respondents 2 and 3 and similarly situated persons are against the prescription in Special Rules. Hence, they are not entitled to get seniority above the petitioners. However, this will not affect the other aspects of appointment of such persons except their seniority. 16. In such circumstances, I cannot find that Exts.P7, P10 and P13 are sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, Exts.P7, P10 and P13 are set aside to the extent it affects seniority to the petitioners. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the issue with respect to the assignment of seniority of the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 and other persons included in Ext.P7 between serial Nos.10 to 16, then assign the seniority to the petitioners as serial Nos.10 and 11 and rearrange the seniority in Ext.P7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. On rearranging such seniority, consequential benefits shall be granted to the petitioners.