JUDGMENT : Petitioner, who joined the service of the 4 th respondent college under the Mahatma Gandhi University, is before this Court challenging Ext.P9 seniority list dated 01.11.2017. The petitioner was appointed as Library Assistant pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2, dated 24.03.2012 and 02.01.2012 respectively, as seen from Ext.P3 appointment order dated 02.07.2012. The fact that the petitioner is so appointed to a substantive vacancy, is not in dispute. The qualification required for appointment by way of direct recruitment under the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 , was that the petitioner should possess S.S.L.C. or equivalent with a pass in the Attender test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. In the case at hand, admittedly, at the time of appointment as above, the petitioner had not cleared the test to be conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. On account of that reason, a scale of pay was also not extended to the petitioner, and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9167 of 2013. This Court, by Ext.P6 judgment dated 27.05.2014, noticed that the Statutes prescribes for an impossibility insofar as the petitioner can clear the Departmental test only after entering into the service. In such circumstances, also taking into account certain treatment extended to others through various other judgments, this Court directed the petitioner herein to be extended the scale of pay of Last Grade Servants, permitting him to clear the Departmental test in three chances. Pursuant to the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner’s appointment stood approved, as seen from Ext.P7 dated 30.09.2014. Later, on 19.09.2017, the petitioner, along with respondents 6 to 10, who were, in the meantime, promoted to the post of Library Assistants, in 2013, cleared the Departmental test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. On the basis of the afore, the petitioner as well as respondents 6 to 10 were regularised. Later, Ext.P9 seniority list was arrived at, wherein the petitioner was placed behind respondents 6 to 10. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 dated 27.11.2018 to the 4 th respondent voicing his grievances, by Ext.P11 dated 29.03.2019, the 5 th respondent rejected the request filed at Ext.P10. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri. Tharun Philip, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.E.G.Gorden, learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, Sri. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri. Tharun Philip, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.E.G.Gorden, learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, Sri. T. G. Saji Varghese, learned counsel for respondents 4 & 5 and Sri. V. Varghese, learned counsel for respondents 6 to 10. 3. The only challenge in this writ petition is as regards the seniority list at Ext.P9 as well as the ultimate findings contained in Ext.P11 issued by the 5 th respondent herein. 4. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed in the 4 th respondent College on 02.07.2012 whereas respondents 6 to 10 were appointed to the post of Library Assistants in the year 2013, however, by way of promotion. The petitioner as well as respondents 6 to 10 have cleared the Departmental test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 19.09.2017 and all of them are extended the scale of pay on a regular basis with reference to the said date. 5. The petitioner, in such circumstances, contend that he should be extended seniority above respondents 6 to 10, with reference to his date of appointment. The petitioner relies on the provisions of Statute 67 of Part C, Chapter 45 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 , in support of the afore contention, which reads as under: “ 67. Determination of seniority: (1) Seniority of an officer in a grade in a unit shall be decided with reference to the date of first appointment in that grade in the unit, provided he is duly qualified for the post.” At first blush, the contention raised by the petitioner appears to be attractive. However, on a reading of Statute 67(1) in its entirety, the petitioner ought to have been duly qualified for the post as on 02.07.2012 so as to claim seniority with reference to the said date. The fact that the petitioner was not so qualified as on 02.07.2012 is not in dispute. It is further true that this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, permitted the petitioner to pass the test in three chances. But a reading of Ext.P6 judgment would show that this Court did not direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner and to provide the scale of pay with respect to the post to which he was appointed. It is further true that this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, permitted the petitioner to pass the test in three chances. But a reading of Ext.P6 judgment would show that this Court did not direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner and to provide the scale of pay with respect to the post to which he was appointed. Instead, the direction issued was only to extend the scale of pay available to the Last Grade Servants. In such circumstances, the fact that the petitioner was not qualified as on the date of appointment – 02.07.2012, cannot be disputed. 6. In this connection, I also notice the provisions of Statute 44 of Part C, Chapter 45 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 , providing for the qualification of appointment, as regards Library Assistants under serial No.12, wherein a separate treatment is being extended as regards those who are appointed “by transfer”, as against those who are appointed directly, like the petitioner herein. As regards those who are appointed “by transfer”, like respondents 6 to 10, the proviso to Serial No.12 states that such persons are to clear the Departmental Test in five consecutive chances, in which event, they would be regularised. However, such a treatment is not extended with respect to those who are appointed directly like the petitioner herein. True, on the face of Serial No.12, some discrimination is apparent. However, in the absence of a challenge to the provisions of the Statute, I am of the opinion that no leniency can be extended to the petitioner herein. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on a judgment of this Court in Anil Kumar B.P. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2009 (2) KHC 94 ], in support of his contention that the date of initial appointment is the crucial date. However, a reading of the afore judgment would also show that, in the said case the appointment considered was with reference to an appointment having the essential qualifications required for the post in question. Insofar as I have already found that the petitioner did not have the required qualification as on 02.07.2012, I am of the opinion that the afore judgment would not have any application to the facts of the case at hand. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P9.Resultantly, this writ petition would stand dismissed.