JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As these O.P.(KAT)’s impugn a common order dated 16.03.2022 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.289 of 2018 and connected cases, and involve a common issue regarding the manner of determining the inter se seniority of incumbents in the cadre of Assistant Professor in the Medical Education Service of the State, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. The facts in brief: 2. The recruitment and promotion to the various posts in the medical services of the State are not governed by any statutory rules but by executive orders issued by the State Government from time to time. This has been the cause for great consternation among both aspirants to the posts as well as incumbents thereof. Further, the non-framing of any rule/guidelines for the determination of inter se seniority among persons appointed to a post on the same day has only exacerbated the problem and added to the misery of those serving in those posts. It is not surprising therefore that there have been multiple rounds of litigation before the State Administrative Tribunal as well as before this Court without any final resolution of the issue. Through this judgment, we make yet another attempt to resolve the said issue. 3. The teaching posts in the Medical Education Service initially comprised of the following posts viz. (i) Professor/Associate Professor and (ii) Reader/Assistant Professor. The posts in each of these categories constituted separate cadres for the purposes of recruitment. Over the years the hierarchy of posts increased in number and by 2000, the teaching posts in the Department swelled to five viz. (i) Professor (ii) Associate Professor (iii) Assistant Professor (iv) Senior Lecturer and (v) Lecturer. While the posts in categories (i) to (iii) constituted separate cadres for the purposes of recruitment, there was some ambiguity as to whether the posts in categories (iv) and (v) constituted a common cadre or not. An indication that the two posts were not envisaged to be part of a common cadre was found in a Government Order G.O.(P) 145/2000/H&FWD dated 16.06.2000 wherein, in the context of revision of scales of pay and allowances of the teaching staff of Medical Colleges, it was stated as follows: “Hereafter recruitment will be to the Senior Lecturer post only and the qualification will be PG Degree in the respective discipline. Only in case PG’s are not available recruitment will be made to the post of Lecturers (8000-13500) with MBBS qualification. Recruitment rules will be amended suitably to the above effect. The existing Lecturers with PG will be re-designated as Senior Lecturers and paid Rs.10,000-15000” It was also made clear in the said G.O. that Lecturers without PG Degree would only be granted a higher scale of pay of Rs.12000-18000 on completion of 10 years of physical teaching experience without any change in designation and that they would not be eligible for any further promotion till they acquired the PG Degree in the respective discipline (emphasis supplied). 4. The consequential amendment in the recruitment rules was effected through G.O.(MS)No.09/2005/H&FWD dated 10.01.2005 whereby separate qualifications were prescribed for recruitment to the posts of Sr.Lecturer and Lecturer, with direct recruitment through the Kerala Public Service Commission being the mode of recruitment for both posts. The minimum qualification for the post of Sr.Lecturer was fixed as PG Degree in the respective discipline whereas the base qualification for the post of Lecturer was fixed as MBBS. 5. The recruitment rules were further amended in 2008 through G.O.(MS)No.100/2008/H&FWD dated 07.04.2008 where the posts in the teaching cadre were categorised as (i) Professor (ii) Associate Professor (iii) Assistant Professor (iv) Sr. Lecturer and (v) Lecturer. The mode of appointment to the posts in categories (i) to (iii) was by promotion from the immediate lower category of posts and the mode of appointment to posts in categories (iv) and (v) was by direct recruitment. There was no change in the qualifications fixed for the various posts. A note to the said G.O. however clarified that the ratio of appointment between Lecturers and Sr.Lecturers shall be 50:50 and that in the absence of sufficient qualified hands available for appointment as Sr.Lecturers their quota would be filled by appointing MBBS graduates as Lecturers and vice versa. It was further stated that Lecturers would be re-designated as Sr.Lecturers by the Director of Medical Education as and when they acquired PG qualification in the specialty required for Sr.Lecturers. 6. It was further stated that Lecturers would be re-designated as Sr.Lecturers by the Director of Medical Education as and when they acquired PG qualification in the specialty required for Sr.Lecturers. 6. A conjoint reading of the G.O’s dated 16.06.2000, 10.01.2005 and 07.04.2008, in the backdrop of the Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 framed by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “MCI Regulations”) will make it clear that the entry level teaching post in the Medical Education Department in the State was that of Sr.Lecturer where the minimum qualification prescribed was PG Degree as prescribed by the MCI Regulations. However, the State Government was apparently permitting a recruitment of Lecturers to posts that required only persons with MBBS qualification, presumably to tide over situations when there was a dearth of PG Degree holders in the State. 7. In 2009, through G.O.(P) No.425/2009/H&FWD dated 14.12.2009, the State Government revised the pay and allowances of teachers in Government Medical Colleges in the State w.e.f 01.01.2006. Paras 5.1 to 5.3 of the Annexure to the said G.O are relevant and read as follows: “5.1. The three teaching grades in the Government Medical and Dental Colleges will be Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. In addition to this there shall be a grade of Additional Professor for Medical and Dental teachers for career advancement promotion of Associate Professors. In Nursing and Pharmacy colleges the three teaching grades will be Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. The entry cadre of teaching staff under Medical Education Service in Government Medical and Dental Colleges will be Assistant Professor. The qualification will be Post Graduate degree (MD/MS/DNB/MCh/DM/MDS or equivalent qualifications) in the concerned specialty with 3 years teaching experience or such other teaching experience as prescribed by the Medical Council of India/Dental Council of India from time to time. The Post-graduate study period for Medical subjects will be considered as teaching experience for appointment as Asst. Professor, provided the candidates have undergone Residency Programme during the Post Graduate course period. The Post-graduate study period for Medical subjects will be considered as teaching experience for appointment as Asst. Professor, provided the candidates have undergone Residency Programme during the Post Graduate course period. However, since the Residency System has been introduced in the Medical Colleges in Kerala only recently Post Graduate study period will be considered as experience for appointment in the case of candidates who have passed the post Graduate courses without undergoing residency programme, provided a certificate is produced by the candidate from the Principal of the college to the effect that the candidate has got teaching/ clinical work experience during the Post Graduate course period. 5.2. All existing Senior Lecturers having Post Graduate Medical/ Dental Degree in the concerned discipline will be redesignated as Assistant Professor. But the Lecturers who have no P.G. degree in concerned discipline will be continued as Lecturer till they acquire Post Graduate Degree in the concerned speciality. They will be redesignated as Assistant Professors from the date of acquiring Post graduate Degree as prescribed. 5.3. If adequate number of candidates with Post Graduate qualifications are not available for direct recruitment as Assistant Professors in concerned specialties, and as three years teaching experience is a pre-requisite qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor as 4per MCI norms, the direct recruitment to the post of Lecturer will be continued for the time being, from among MBBS graduates. Similarly, direct recruitment as Lecturers will be continued in Dental Colleges also if adequate number of Post Graduate qualified candidates are not available in concerned specialities.” It is apparent from the above that the categories of teaching grades in the Government Medical Colleges was reduced to three, namely (i) Professor (ii) Associate Professor and (iii) Assistant Professor. It was also mandated that the entry cadre teaching staff under the Medical Education Service would be Assistant Professor, with the prescription of PG Degree qualification with three years teaching experience to hold the post. Further, all existing Sr.Lecturers having PG Degree qualification were to be re-designated as Assistant Professors. However, Lecturers who did not have PG Degree qualification were to be continued as Lecturers till they acquired PG Degree qualification, and on so acquiring that qualification, were to be re-designated as Assistant Professors from the date of acquiring such qualification. 8. Further, all existing Sr.Lecturers having PG Degree qualification were to be re-designated as Assistant Professors. However, Lecturers who did not have PG Degree qualification were to be continued as Lecturers till they acquired PG Degree qualification, and on so acquiring that qualification, were to be re-designated as Assistant Professors from the date of acquiring such qualification. 8. The formal phasing out of the posts of Sr.Lecturers in the Medical Education Department came about with the issuance of G.O. (MS) No.14/2013/H&FWD dated 22.01.2013 where the Government amended the Recruitment Rules further, and prescribed a second method of recruitment for the post of Asst.Professor as follows: “Appointment from Lecturers by re-designating them as Assistant Professors by the appointing authority as and when they acquire Post Graduate Degree as prescribed” The primary method of recruitment to the post of Asst.Professor continued to be by direct recruitment of PG Degree holders through the Kerala Public Service Commission. The category of Sr.Lecturers was removed from the G.O dated 07.04.2008 that had formally introduced it, and it was clarified that all existing Sr.Lecturers having PG Degree will be re-designated as Assistant Professors and that thereafter, the entry cadre of teaching staff under the Medical Education Service would be Asst.Professor as envisaged under the G.O dated 14.12.2009 referred to above. 9. It is quite clear from the above sequence of events that the term ‘re-designation’ used in the various G.O’s referred above is not in the sense of a mere shift to a higher pay scale but refers to an upgradation of the lower post, in the hierarchy of posts in the Medical Service Department, to the next higher post in that hierarchy. Thus, when a post of Lecturer was re-designated as Sr.Lecturer, as and when the incumbent acquired a PG Degree qualification, that post of Lecturer ceased to operate in the cadre of Lecturer and moved to the higher cadre of Sr.Lecturer and formed a part thereof. In other words, the re-designations brought about a cadre re-structuring in the Department, with the posts removed from the lower cadre, moving up to create an equal number of posts in the higher cadre of re-designated posts. Similar was the case when posts of Sr.Lecturers were re-designated as Asst.Professors. 10. In other words, the re-designations brought about a cadre re-structuring in the Department, with the posts removed from the lower cadre, moving up to create an equal number of posts in the higher cadre of re-designated posts. Similar was the case when posts of Sr.Lecturers were re-designated as Asst.Professors. 10. It is against the backdrop of the above recruitment framework that obtained in the Medical Education Service in the State that we have to consider the inter se claims of the parties before us, as regards their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor. Towards this end, we have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.Ravindran, Sri.Elvin Peter and Sri.Raju Joseph, duly assisted by Adv.Smt.Lakshmi Ramadas, Adv.Sri.M.R.Anison, Adv.Sri.P.Nandakumar and Adv.Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi for the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Asok M. Cherian, duly assisted by Adv.Smt.Sabeena P. Ismail for the State Government, and Adv.Smt.Girija K. Gopal, Adv.Sri.Aravindakshan Pillai, ADv.Sri.U.Balagangadharan and Adv.Sri.Biju Balakrishnan for the party respondents. As we propose to deal with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel while rendering our findings on each issue, we do not deem it necessary to summarise them at this stage. Discussion & Findings: 11. At the outset we may clarify that our discussions on the issue of inter se seniority of the parties in the cadre of Assistant Professor will not have a bearing on the service conditions, including seniority, of those persons who were promoted to the next higher post of Associate Professor before the commencement of this lis since their seniority in that post will count from the date of their entry into the cadre of Associate Professors, and their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor was not under challenge when they were promoted as Associate Professors. We are of the view that even if a re-arrangement of seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professors is found necessary with effect from a prior date, the same should not affect the promotions already made to the cadre of Associate Professor prior to the commencement of this lis. 12. We note from the common order of the Tribunal impugned in these petitions that the Tribunal was inter alia considering the legality of an order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Government. 12. We note from the common order of the Tribunal impugned in these petitions that the Tribunal was inter alia considering the legality of an order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Government. Vide the said order, the Government had found that there existed two types of posts in the category of Assistant Professors namely (i) cadre posts and (ii) non-cadre posts and that persons who had been re-designated as Assistant Professors would be entitled to claim seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor only with effect from the date of their adjustment to a vacancy occurring in a cadre post. A direction was accordingly issued to the DME to recast the seniority list of Asst.Professors on the said basis. The Tribunal found the said classification of posts in the category of Asst.Professors to be wholly devoid of any legal basis and accordingly set aside the Government Order. 13. Before us, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that inasmuch as the re-designations as Sr.Lecturers and Asst.Professors were mandated through pay revision orders, they had to be seen as merely conferring the pay scale applicable to the post of Asst.Professor to the person who was so re-designated. The contention, in other words, is that the re-designation cannot be seen as having granted the person concerned an upgradation to the post of Asst.Professor. We are afraid, we cannot accept the said contention. The recommendations in the pay revision orders were followed by Government Orders that brought about amendments to the recruitment rules that, in turn, had the effect of deleting the erstwhile designation of the posts and re-designating them. Thus, effectively, the posts carrying the erstwhile designation stood converted as posts bearing the new designation. As the re-designation was to a post in a higher cadre, the status of the incumbent also accordingly changed from an incumbent in a post in the lower cadre to that of an incumbent in a post in a higher cadre. Further, inasmuch as the post, along with the incumbent, moved to the higher level, there was a corresponding increase in the number of posts in the higher cadre and, therefore, the incumbent had thereafter to be seen as occupying a cadre post in the higher cadre. 14. Further, inasmuch as the post, along with the incumbent, moved to the higher level, there was a corresponding increase in the number of posts in the higher cadre and, therefore, the incumbent had thereafter to be seen as occupying a cadre post in the higher cadre. 14. The learned counsel would then argue that it was not open to the applicants before the Tribunal to have brought a belated challenge to a finalised seniority list so as to upset promotions that had already been effected based on the said list. They rely on the decisions of this court and the Supreme Court that hold that a final and approved seniority list, that has been acted upon by the employer, cannot be challenged belatedly at the instance of an employee who chose to ‘sit back’ and watch the list being acted upon for a considerable period of time. The Tribunal considered the said argument of the petitioners herein and addressed it as follows: “32. The party respondents contend that they entered service long back and on the basis of the then prevailing orders and later promoted as Assistant Professors. Those promotions which were ordered after due deliberations before the DPC were never challenged by the applicants. They did not even dispute the seniority lists on the basis of which the select lists were prepared by the DPC. Therefore the applicant cannot be allowed to challenge their promotion and seniority at this distance of time. 33. But the applicants submit that all the promotions are provisional and subject to review based on the outcome of the SLP against the judgment in O.P.(KAT).No.148 of 2015 which is pending before the Supreme Court. The above interim order was rendered by the Honourable High Court on 24.5.2007 in W.P.(C).No.8316 of 2017 which is now pending before the Supreme Court. They contend that the promotions of the respondents have not become final and therefore there is no merit in the claims based on sit back principles or belated objections. It is also pointed out that all the appointments of persons without PG Degree made to the posts of Lecturers after the 1976 G.O. Suffers from an infirmity since the 1976 G.O. Insisted that all teachers must possess the requisite Post Graduate Degree in the respective subject. Therefore they cannot claim any indefeasible right. It is also pointed out that all the appointments of persons without PG Degree made to the posts of Lecturers after the 1976 G.O. Suffers from an infirmity since the 1976 G.O. Insisted that all teachers must possess the requisite Post Graduate Degree in the respective subject. Therefore they cannot claim any indefeasible right. Further, there were no approved seniority list of Lecturers, Senior Lecturers or Assistant Professors. Though the learned Government Pleader, during the course of the final hearing, produced certain tabular statements along with memos describing them to be seniority list they cannot be accepted as an approved seniority list since they were not duly approved or properly circulated. It is also to be noticed that in the reply statement in these cases the DME has clearly stated that no seniority list was published. In the absence of an approved seniority list and in the light of the specific order of the Honourable High Court ordering that all promotions are subject to review, the parties cannot claim the principles of sit back since no such rights have been crystalised. 34. But in the judgment in O.P.(KAT).No.148 of 2015 the Hon'ble Court has interdicted the directions issued by this Tribunal to review the promotions already effected since there was no specific relief claimed in the T.A. The party respondents contend that in these cases also there was no timely challenge against the promotions and it cannot be assailed after long years. 35. Learned Counsel for respondents contend that whatever be the contentions of the applicants and the findings of the Tribunal on such contentions, no relief can be granted to the applicants so as to affect the seniority or promotions of the respondents who have already been promoted as Assistant Professor. But the applicants submits that the judgment of the High Court does not impose any such injunctions against challenging any promotions. It only took note of the lack of clarity in the pleadings and declared that “such a vague prayer cannot culminate in unsettling of promotions validly effected.” It is pointed out that the above restriction are in relation to challenge against the promotions validly effected and it will not apply to the promotions of the respondents herein who were illegally promoted, ignoring Rule 10(ab) of KS&SSR. It is argued that the respondents in these proceedings who got promotions in violation of the rules cannot seek shelter under the above observations. They also assert that none of the promotions to the post of Assistant Professors has become final since the Hon'ble High Court as per the interim order dated 24/5/2007 in WP(C)No.8316 of 2007 has made it clear that “the promotions, if any, made in the Medical Education Service to the post of Assistant Professor in all Departments will be subject to the result of the writ petition.” The said Writ Petition was later transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.4858 of 2012 from which O.P.(KAT)No.148 of 2015 arose. The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court.” The said findings of the Tribunal being self explanatory, and acceptable to us, we do not see any reason to deviate from the same in this judgment. 15. The only reservation we have with the impugned order of the Tribunal is with regard to the manner in which it disposed the Original Applications that came up for consideration before it. While setting aside the orders impugned in the Original Applications and remanding the matter to the Government for passing fresh orders in the matter of re-casting of the seniority list of Asst. Professors in the Medical Education Service, the Tribunal did not prescribe the criteria by which that exercise was to be done by the Government. In our view, such a prescription was required since, on two earlier occasions, the Government had arrived at contradictory views regarding the manner in which the seniority list was to be recast. As a quietus to the vexed issue of seniority would be in the best interests of all, we are of the view that the exercise of recasting the seniority list of Assistant Professors in the Medical Education Service must be done keeping in mind the following principles that flow from the discussions in this judgment; a. The seniority of those Asst.Professors who had already been promoted as Associate Professors before the commencement of this lis need not be revisited by the Government. The recasting of the seniority list of Assistant Professors should only be in respect of those presently in the cadre of Asst.Professors and those whose promotions/re-designation as Associate Professors took place during the pendency of these proceedings and were made subject to the outcome of these proceedings. The recasting of the seniority list of Assistant Professors should only be in respect of those presently in the cadre of Asst.Professors and those whose promotions/re-designation as Associate Professors took place during the pendency of these proceedings and were made subject to the outcome of these proceedings. b. Going by the provisions of Rule 27 of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR), the seniority of Assistant Professors shall be primarily determined based on the date of their entry into the cadre of Asst.Professor either by promotion or by re-designation. Those who have entered into the cadre earlier in point of time shall be placed higher in the seniority list prepared for that cadre. c. In the case of persons who were re-designated as Asst.Professors on the same date, their inter se seniority in the cadre of Asst.Professor shall be based on their inter se seniority in the immediate lower cadre of Sr. Lecturer. The senior among them in the cadre of Sr. Lecturer shall be identified based on the criteria of date of entry into that cadre either by direct recruitment or by re-designation, as determined under Rule 27 (c) and (a) respectively of the KS&SSR, and the senior among them shall retain his/her seniority in the cadre of Asst.Professor as well. d. In the case of Lecturers who have been re-designated as Asst.Professors consequent to their acquisition of the PG Qualification, their seniority in the cadre of Asst.Professor shall also be determined based on the date of their entry into that cadre. It is made clear that the said criteria shall govern even their inter se seniority with other Lecturers in that cadre, who might have been recruited along with them in the cadre of Lecturers, and despite their having had advice seniority (Rule 27 (c) of the KS&SSR) over such persons in the cadre of Lecturers. As rightly observed by the Tribunal in the impugned order, the advice seniority obtained in connection with the direct recruitment to a particular cadre can have relevance only for determining inter se seniority in that cadre, and not for determining such seniority in a higher cadre to which the persons have been subsequently promoted/re-designated. As rightly observed by the Tribunal in the impugned order, the advice seniority obtained in connection with the direct recruitment to a particular cadre can have relevance only for determining inter se seniority in that cadre, and not for determining such seniority in a higher cadre to which the persons have been subsequently promoted/re-designated. These O.P.(KAT)'s are thus disposed by upholding the impugned order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal to the extent indicated above and with a direction to the State Government to finalise the seniority list of Asst.Professors in the Medical Education service within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the seniority list of Asst.Professors so finalised shall form the basis for effecting promotions to the post of Associate Professor in the service.