JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 order, whereby the petitioners were reverted from the cadre of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) to Masappady cadre. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioners are presently working as Devaswom Assistant Officers in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk in the 1 st respondent Board. The petitioners were originally appointed on daily wage basis during 1987 and continued till 1995. As per order dated 01.01.1996, issued by the 1 st respondent Board, the 1 st petitioner was regularized in service in the cadre of Last Grade Service, whereas the 2 nd petitioner was appointed as Last Grade Servant as per order dated 18.10.1996. The Board promulgated the Rules for the appointment in the regular services of the Board by the notification dated 01.02.1988. By virtue of Rule 22 of the said Rules a person shall be recruited directly only against the vacancy of LDC and equivalent posts and Rule 26 protect the interest of employees in the institution and 25% of the vacancy in open competition by direct recruitment is reserved for the employees. While so, an order was issued on 04.01.1992, by the 1 st respondent, deciding to give promotion to the Last Grade Employees of the Board who have passed S.S.L.C and got minimum service of 5 years in the establishment as Devaswom Assistants, equivalent to the post of Lower Division Clerk. The Board introduced written test and interview as the method for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk from Cadre of Last Grade Employees in the Board. Petitioners attended the written test and was included in the list of eligible candidates to be called for the interview for promotion to the post of LDC from Last Grade Servant and after the interview, Ext.P1 rank list was published. The 1 st petitioner was assigned Rank No.32 and the 2 nd petitioner, Rank No.26. Petitioners attended the written test and was included in the list of eligible candidates to be called for the interview for promotion to the post of LDC from Last Grade Servant and after the interview, Ext.P1 rank list was published. The 1 st petitioner was assigned Rank No.32 and the 2 nd petitioner, Rank No.26. Some of the Last Grade Employees based on the Order dated 04.01.1992, wherein the Board has taken a decision to give promotion to the Last Grade Employees of the Board who have passed S.S.L.C and got minimum service of 5 years, approached this Court filing O.P.No.29999 of 2002 and the same was disposed of by this Court by directing the Board to consider the claim of the petitioners therein in accordance with Rules. Later, some other Last Grade Employees filed W.P(C) No.21146 of 2004 challenging Notification dated 11.12.2003 by which the Board conducted the written test and interview for promotion, in which the petitioners were assigned rank No.32 and 26 respectively. By Ext.P2 judgment the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. Though Ext.P2 judgment was challenged till the Apex Court, filing S.L.P No.2436 of 2004, the same was also dismissed. The petitioners in Ext.P2 judgment along with others filed W.P (C) No.36137 of 2007 again claiming promotion based on the Order dated 04.01.1992 suppressing the dismissal of the earlier writ petition as per Ext.P2 judgment. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Board to pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioners therein. Thereafter by the order dated 26.02.2008, the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.36137 of 2007 were provisionally promoted subject to the approval of this Court. Thereafter the Board filed D.B.A. No. 22 of 2008 before this Court for approval of the appointment made by order dated 26.02.2008. This Court by Ext.P3 order dated 09.04.2008, provisionally permitted the appointment and promotion made by Board by its order dated 26.02.2008, considering the urgent requirements. But it was observed that as soon as the written test and interview for the promotion to the post of the LDC/ Devaswom Assistants is over, the selected candidates shall be appointed in the place of provisional appointment made as per order dated 26.02.2008. The petitioners submit that they were not a party to the aforesaid O.P.No.29999 of 2002, W.P.(C)Nos. 21146 of 2004 and 36137 of 2007. The petitioners submit that they were not a party to the aforesaid O.P.No.29999 of 2002, W.P.(C)Nos. 21146 of 2004 and 36137 of 2007. Pursuant to the direction in Ext.P2 judgment in W.P.(C)No.21146 of 2004, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 36137 of 2007 were reverted and the same was challenged by petitioners therein by filing W.P.(C).No.21209 of 2008 before this Court. The opinion of the Ombudsman was sought by the Court and the Ombudsman reported that if the persons who were senior to petitioners in W.P(C).No.21209 of 2008 were given promotions in terms of order dated 04.01.1992 of the Board and there are vacancies available and their request for promotion is before the commencement of the Notification dated 11.12.2003 which came in to force on 01.01.2004 mandating written test and interview for promotion to post of LDC, their promotion can be made subject to the adjustment of the seniority. Based on the said report, this Court by Ext.P4 judgment, directed the Board to regularize promotion to the petitioners therein along with their seniors maintaining interse seniority. The petitioners submit that they were not a party to Ext. P4 judgment also. The petitioners were not aware of the direction in Ext.P4. Anyhow, petitioners were qualified to be promoted to the post of LDC/ Devaswom Assistants as they are included in the Ext. P1 rank list, which was published after conducting written test and interview pursuant to the Notification dated 11.12.2003. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, the Board decided to make promotion to 25% of the total vacancies, ie, 20 posts, as per Rule 26 of the Rules, 1988 governing appointment and the Board decided to regularize the promotion of 8 petitioners in Ext.P4 judgment and the balance 12 posts were decided to be filled up by promoting 5 Last Grade Employees including petitioners, in terms of the seniority and qualifications as per order dated 04.01.1992 of the Board as they have acquired the eligibility for promotion prior to the commencement of Notification and the balance post to be filled up from Ext.P1 rank list. The petitioners contend that they were not promoted as LDC even though they were included in the select list of 5 persons based on seniority alone. The direction in Ext.P4 judgment and consequential appointments made based on the seniority created serious confusion, since it overlooks the seniority of persons included in Ext.P1 rank list. The petitioners contend that they were not promoted as LDC even though they were included in the select list of 5 persons based on seniority alone. The direction in Ext.P4 judgment and consequential appointments made based on the seniority created serious confusion, since it overlooks the seniority of persons included in Ext.P1 rank list. While so, the Board filed D.B.A.No.16 of 2011 seeking permission for appointment. Some other employees filed Review Petition seeking review of Ext.P4 judgment and some others filed WP.(C) Nos.1089 and 5559 of 2011 claiming promotions based on Ext.P1 rank list. All these were heard together and disposed of by judgment dated 28.09.2011 directing the Board to make recruitment to various posts in consultation with the Public Service Commission(PSC). While so, the persons holding rank Nos.11 and 13 in Ext.P1 rank list approached this Court filing W.P (C) No.7758 of 2012, alleging that the 1 st respondent Board is making appointments based on the seniority and without considering Ext.P1 rank list. The petitioners herein were impleaded as additional respondents 4 and 5 in the said writ petition and the same was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment, whereby the writ petition was allowed finding that Ext.P3 judgment was obtained by playing fraud on this Court by suppressing Ext.P2 judgment and directed the Board to make appointment to the balance 12 vacancies from Ext.P1 rank list as approved by the PSC. Though Ext.P5 judgment was challenged in appeal filing Writ Appeal No.1657 of 2018 and connected cases, the Division Bench affirmed Ext.P5 judgment and dismissed all the Writ Appeals. The petitioners submit that they were not give promotion in pursuance of direction in Ext.P5 judgment. However, even after Ext.P5 judgment, the Board has not reverted the petitioners in Ext.P4 judgment and permitted them to continue as LDC. While so, the 1 st petitioner submitted a representation requesting to consider his promotion to the cadre of LDC considering his seniority and inclusion in the rank list. The 2 nd petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.28768 of 2014, praying for reverting the persons appointed on the strength of Ext.P4 judgment and to revert the persons appointed from the Ext.P1 rank list who does not have the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of LDC, since they do not have 5 years continuous service on the date of Ext.P1 rank list. While so, W.P.(C)No.24758 of 2013 filed by the persons having rank Nos.17, 22 and 23 was disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 07.01.2015 recording the submission of the Board that, by decision dated 16.12.2014, the Board has decided to promote those petitioners and revert the persons who were promoted on the strength of Ext.P4 judgment. Though the Board has promoted the petitioners in W.P(C)No.24758 of 2013, did not revert the persons promoted in pursuance of Ext.P4 judgment. While the writ petition filed by the 2 nd petitioner was pending consideration, the Board issued Ext.P6 order, whereby the 2 nd petitioner was promoted as LDC and 1 st petitioner's promotion was delayed on account of disciplinary proceedings. Later, considering the representation submitted by the 2 nd petitioner, the Board decided to give promotion to the 2 nd petitioner with effect from 24.03.2009. Subsequently this Court by Ext.P7 judgment directed the Board to grant the 2 nd petitioner all the benefits arising of the service with effect from 24.03.2009. Later, by Ext.P8 order dated 15.11.2015, the 1 st petitioner was given promotion as LD Clerk since the disciplinary proceeding against him had concluded. While so, Ext.P9 order was issued by the 1 st respondent Board reverting the petitioners from the cadre of LDC to massapadi cadre. In Ext.P9, it is stated that the decision to revert petitioners is in pursuance of Reference Nos.1 and 2 therein and the petitioners are unaware of the contents of reference Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.P9 and the decision to revert petitioners was taken without issuing any notice or seeking any explanation. The only reason stated in Ext.P9 is that they are ineligible for promotion to the cadre of LDC for lack of test qualification. 3. The petitioners would contend that the respondents have not considered the fact that the petitioners have test qualification and included in the Ext.P1 rank list and Ext.P9 order has been issued erroneously reverting the petitioners. The petitioners would also submit that treating the petitioners along with the petitioners in Ext.P4 judgment is absolutely arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as the petitioners are test qualified and are entitled for promotion to the cadre of LDC and the respondents are bound to promote the petitioners in accordance with Ext.P1 rank list in the available vacancies. The petitioners would also submit that treating the petitioners along with the petitioners in Ext.P4 judgment is absolutely arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as the petitioners are test qualified and are entitled for promotion to the cadre of LDC and the respondents are bound to promote the petitioners in accordance with Ext.P1 rank list in the available vacancies. The petitioners submit that they are not claiming promotion on the basis of seniority, but they are entitled for promotion being test qualified and on the basis of the rank in Ext.P1 rank list. It is also submitted that though W.P.(C)No.28768 of 2014 was disposed of by this Court taking note of the fact that the 2 nd petitioner was granted promotion with effect from 24.03.2009, the petitioners would contend that in W.P.(C)No.28768 of 2014, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P13, the relief sought for by the petitioners is to take action against respondents 3 to 8, who were promoted illegally on the basis of Ext.P4 judgment and also seeking promotion to the cadre of LDC on the basis of Ext.P1 rank list. On the basis of the same, the petitioners would contend that all through out the case of the petitioners is on the basis of Ext.P1 rank list and seeking promotion by proceeding against respondents 3 to 8, who were promoted illegally on the basis of Ext.P4 judgment. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 st respondent Board. Essentially the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board is that the promotion granted to the petitioners was taking into consideration their seniority and not taking into consideration their rank in the rank list and in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.7758 of 2012 (Ext.P5), a decision was taken to revert the petitioners also. To drive home the point, the learned Standing Counsel based on the counter affidavit filed submits that, the petitioners are fully aware of the fact that the rank No.23 in Ext.P1 is the last person promoted and their turn has not arisen and the petitioners also claimed the benefit of Ext.P4 judgment and sought for promotion. It is further submitted that Ext.P9 order was issued in compliance with the directions issued in Ext.P5 judgment. 5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 6. It is further submitted that Ext.P9 order was issued in compliance with the directions issued in Ext.P5 judgment. 5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 6. The stand taken by the Board is that Ext.P9 was issued in compliance with Ext.P5 judgment, and the petitioners were reverted for the reason that they were granted promotion based on their seniority alone and not from the rank list. But the petitioners would submit that in the writ petition filed by the 2 nd petitioner as W.P.(C)No.28768 of 2014, the specific relief sought for is to take proceedings against respondents 3 to 8, who were promoted illegally on the basis of Ext.P4 judgment and seeking promotion to the cadre of LDC on the basis of Ext.P1 rank list. 7. In Ext.P5 judgment, this Court has considered the rival contentions of the parties and entered into a finding as follows: “14. Even now, knowing fully about the nondisclosure of Ext.P8 judgment before three Division Benches of this Court, the first respondent still proceeds to contend that the judgment of the subsequent Division Bench that is W.P. (C) No. 21209/2008 requires to be complied with and still overlooking the directions issued by another Division Bench in Ext.P4 judgment. Having suffered a judgment by way of Exts. P8 and P9, it was not open for the very same petitioners to claim the benefit of 1992 order when the 2004 Rules had come into effect. It is a settled position of law that fraud on court is a nullity and therefore I have no hesitation to hold that non-disclosure of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 21146/2004 in the subsequent proceedings had resulted in the said judgments becoming null and void and cannot be relied upon for providing any benefit to any of the parties claiming benefit of the said judgment. Gowrishanker v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996) 3 SCC 310 ), A.V.Pappaya Sastry v. Government of A.P. ( 2007(4) SCC 221 ), National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh ( 2007(2) SCC 481 ) , Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi ( 2012(1) SCC 476 ) and Badani v. Bhali (2012) 11 SCC 574 ). 15. Gowrishanker v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996) 3 SCC 310 ), A.V.Pappaya Sastry v. Government of A.P. ( 2007(4) SCC 221 ), National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh ( 2007(2) SCC 481 ) , Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi ( 2012(1) SCC 476 ) and Badani v. Bhali (2012) 11 SCC 574 ). 15. Viewed in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the approach of the first respondent in relying upon the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 21209/2008 for appointing certain persons claiming benefit of the 1992 order and who are well behind in the rank list prepared by the Board is contrary to law and is liable to be deprecated and I do so. 16. The attitude now taken by the first respondent ignoring Ext.P8 judgment of this Court and Ext.P9 order of the Supreme Court is liable to be viewed very seriously. Having regard to the fact that the actual persons who were involved in this matter is not before me, I refrain from issuing any drastic order against the first respondent. But I may caution to say that the first respondent shall not indulge in such exercise or negligent approach in future. While defending such claims being made by employees of the Board, the lawyers concerned also should be very careful when repeated litigations are filed by employees claiming various benefits. It is needless to state that advocate has to assist the court in giving a proper judgment taking into consideration the factual and legal aspects of the matter. They should not fall into the trap of litigants who are capable of defrauding the court as well. Every attempt is to be made by the lawyers concerned to ascertain the entire factual matters arising in the case before submitting a petition before a court of law. Unless such preliminary steps are taken, it may result in the courts issuing directions which may affect the credibility and integrity of the lawyer concerned. In the result, this writ petition is only to be allowed and I direct the first respondent to make appointments to the balance vacancies out of the approved 12 vacancies by KPSC, from Ext.P3 rank list, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the result, this writ petition is only to be allowed and I direct the first respondent to make appointments to the balance vacancies out of the approved 12 vacancies by KPSC, from Ext.P3 rank list, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. “ By Ext.P5 judgment this Court has directed to make appointments to the balance vacancies out of the approved 12 vacancies by the KPSC from Ext.P3 rank list(Ext.P1 in this writ petition). 8. All through out, the petitioners were claiming promotion as LD Clerk, only on the basis of the ranked position in Ext.P1 rank list. By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court has directed that the appointment shall be made strictly from Ext.P1 rank list prepared. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition could be disposed of with the following orders and directions: 1. Ext.P9 order is set aside. 2. The 1 st respondent Board shall consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion strictly in accordance with the directions in Ext.P5 judgment and the seniority in Ext.P1 rank list. 3. Necessary follow up action shall be taken by the 1 st respondent Board as directed above, without any delay, at any rate within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.