IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 24870 of 2007(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.V.RAJU, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, ARMED POLICE BATTALION, NOW WORKING AS CHIEF GUARD, MARINE ENFORCEMENT AND VIGILANCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.RAJAN, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ROY P.JOSEPH, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. C.S.MURALEEDHARAN, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, KERALA ARMED POLICE IV BATTALION, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, SRI.S.A.ANAND. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C). NO.24870/2007: 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. M.SAVANKUTTY NAIR, 'AYYAPPAS', KOLLIYOOR, POONKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. NAJEEB MOHAMMED, CHIEF SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT, TITANIUM MINERALS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. K.RAJASEKHARAN, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, K.A.P II BATTALION, ADOOR. 7. K.N.VASUDEVAN, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, K.A.P.II BATTALION, PALAKKAD. 8. A.JAYARAJAN, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, K.A.P.IV BATTALION, KANNUR. 9. T.R.SASIDHARAN, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, K.A.P. I BATTALION, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR. 10. T.M.GOPI, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R.11. JOSEPH RUSSEL D'CRUZ, S/O. CHARLY D'CRUZ, AGED 44, ARMED POLICE INSPECTOR, POLICE TRAINING COLLEGE, TRISSUR. *ADDL.R.11 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/05/2008 IN I.A. NO. 82/2008. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR, ADV. SRI.MANOJ R.NAIR - R10, SRI.S.JAMAL - R6,R8 & R9, SRI.BIMAL K.NATH , SRI.SREEVALSAN.V, SMT.SMITHA DIVAKARAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER - R1 TO R3 SRI.S.SREEKUMAR - R11. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 25439/2007 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24870/2007-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O. (MS). NO. 23/91/HOME DTD. 05/02/1991. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A3/27388/91 (DGO NO. 250/91) DTD. 08/04/1991 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HEADQUARTERS). EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE G.O. (RT). NO. 491/96/HOME DTD. 23/02/1996. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A1-1347/92 S (BO NO. 80/92-S) DTD. 21/02/1992 OF THE COMMANDANT, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE BATTALION. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A1-1347/92 S (BO NO. 115/92-2), DTD. 18/03/1992 OF THE COMMANDANT, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE BATTALION. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE R.1. IN O.P. NO. 5022/1996-W OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 5022/96-W DTD. 04/12/1996 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE G.O. (RT). NO. 1445/97/HOME DTD. 31/03/199. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. 448/97 DTD. 11/04/1997 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. 425/97-C DTD. 18/08/2005 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 29/09/05. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL). NO. 292/06-S DTD. 01/08/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE G.O. (MS). NO. 146/2007/HOME DTD. 23/06/2007. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. 462/02 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O. (RT). 5492/88/HOME DTD. 27/10/1988. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O. (RT) 5439/90/HOME DTD. 31/08/1990. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O. (MS). 66/91/HOME DTD. 02/04/1991. W.P.(C). NO.24870/2007-I: RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R11.A: COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES 1984 G.O.P. NO. 6/1984 DTD. 18/01/1984. EXT.R11.B: COPY OF THE G.O. P. NO. 4/84 DTD. 18/01/1984. EXT.R11.C: COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE COMMITTEE. EXT.R11.D: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 20/06/2005 IN O.P. NO. 22547/2000. EXT.R11.E: COPY OF THE D.G.O. NO. 361/2007 DTD. 19/03/2007. EXT.R11.F: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 02/04/2007 IN CONTEMPT CASE NO. 192/2007. //TRUE COPY// prv. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24870, 25439, & 29950 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT Similar issues arise for consideration in these three writ petitions. But, an additional issue arises in W.P.(C)No.24870/07, where the facts are to be particularly referred to. I will refer to the individual orders and therefore, W.P.(C)No.24870/07 is taken as the leading case. 2. The petitioners are persons appointed as Assistant Commandants in the Armed Police Battalion. They were originally appointed as Havildars under sports quota. First petitioner was appointed as an Armed Police Sub Inspector, while continuing as Havildar and then as Armed Police Inspector. By Ext.P1 Government order, the Government had considered the recommendations of a committee constituted by the Government to examine the proposals made by the Director General of Police for appointment of eminent athletes and sportsmen in the department and to make suitable recommendations to the Government. The recommendation made by the committee were accepted by the Government and the Government ordered that supernumerary posts of Armed W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 2 :: Police Additional Sub Inspector and 5 supernumerary posts of Armed Police Inspectors will be created in the Police Department to accommodate the persons. Ext.P1 order further mentions that the Director General of Police is authorized to appoint 5 persons eminent persons, (The petitioners and other persons mentioned therein) as Armed Police Inspectors “as per Rule 3(c) of the Kerala Police Subordinate Service Battalion” (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Rules for the State Service”). The appointment of 4 among them including the 3 among the petitioners was in relaxation of the minimum educational qualifications invoking Rule 39 of the Rules. It may be noted herein that relaxation given in Ext.P1 was only in relation to educational qualifications of the appointments. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioners were appointed under Ext.P2 order. 3. It may be noted that Ext.P1 order was subsequently modified under Ext.P18 order, to the effect that instead of the Subordinate Rules in para 6(3) of Ext.P1 order, the Government directed that it should be read as per the provisions of the Special Rules Kerala Police (Amendment) viz., W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 3 :: Special Rules. No other portion of Ext.P1 was changed by Ext.P18. By Ext.P2 order, the petitioners were appointed as Armed Police Inspectors against supernumerary posts created. While the petitioners were anticipating promotions to the post of Assistant Commandant, Ext.P3 order came to be passed. Those who were promoted to the post of Armed Police Inspector came to be promoted as Assistant Commandant. The petitioners challenged Ext.P3 order in O.P.No.5022/07. Ext.P6 counter affidavit came to be filed by the Government therein. The deponent in Ext.P6 affirmed that the petitioners were appointed as Armed Police Sub Inspector and Armed Police Inspector and Assistant Commandant against supernumerary posts. Reference was specifically made to Ext.R1(a) (in O.P.No.5022/07) communication which reads as follows: “I am directed to invite your attention to the letter cited and to inform you that the seniority of a person in service shall be determined by the date of his appointment to that cadre vide Rule 27(a) of the General Rules. As such, the incumbents have to be absorbed in the next arising vacancies of Armed Police Inspectors immediately after their supernumerary appointment.” W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 4 :: 4. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, the deponent affirmed that the incumbent should have been promoted to the next arising vacancy of Armed Police Inspector immediately after his appointment in the supernumerary post. The Director General of Police has been directed to take further action accordingly. It is further pointed out that the petitioners' grievance will be redressed on implementation of Ext.R1(a). O.P.No.5022/07 was disposed of vide Ext.P7 judgment. Taking note of Ext.R1(a) and specifically referring to the same, the respondents were directed to pass orders on Ext.R2(a) to review the promotions of the contesting respondents in O.P.No.5022/07. The respondents were also directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant in implementation of Ext.R1(a) order. 5. Apparently, Ext.P7 judgment was not fully implemented, according to the petitioners. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P8 order, the petitioners came to be provisionally promoted as Assistant Commandants. Ext.P7 judgment was challenged by certain third parties in W.A.No.447 and 478/07. A bench of this W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 5 :: court in Ext.P9 judgment held in para 3 as follows: “So also in Writ Appeal 448 of 1997, respondents 1 to 4, who are the original petitioners, and they were originally appointed as A.S.I and later promoted as Armed Sub Inspector and they became Inspectors in 1991. Whereas, appellant Sasidharan became Inspector only in 1992. the contention of the appellant in these cases is that the party respondents in these two writ appeals were appointed under Rule of the K.S. & S.S.R. And they were also given promoted by invoking Rule 39 of the K.S. & S.S.R as they were sportsmen. This according to the appellants was not lega. But it may be noted that the promotions were given years back and the promotion was not challenged by these appellants. So long as that order is followed the party respondents in these writ appeals got promotion much prior to these appellants became Inspectors. Ext.R1(a) was issued by the Government clarifying the position that the seniority of a person in service shall be determined by the date of his appointment to that cadre vide Rule 27(a) of the General Rules as such, petitioners would be absorbed in the next arising vacancies of Armed Police Inspectors immediately after their supernumerary appointment. Ext.R1(a) is to effect that their supernumerary promotion will be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing their seniority. The appellants could not point out any provision to show that supernumerary promotion will not confer any W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 6 :: seniority by virtue of Rule 27(a) of K.S. & S.S.R. Having regard to all these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned single Judge.” 6. Reference could be made at this juncture to W.P.(C)No.29950/07, which shows that the petitioners were absorbed against the vacancies which had arisen subsequent to Ext.P2. Apparently, the petitioners were treated as absorbed in the cadre of Armed Police Inspectors with reference to the date noted in Ext.P5, according to the petitioners. 7. Going back to W.P.(C)No.24870/07, the petitioners claim to have a grievance when Ext.P14 order was issued by the Government on the premise that Ext.P7 judgment, as affirmed in Exts.P9 and P10 judgments, has not been fully complied with. The petitioners moved this court in C.O.C.No. 292/06. It is contended that they are yet to be regularly promoted as Assistant Commandants and that, once their probation in the post of Assistant Commandants is declared, they could be further considered for promotion as Deputy Commandants. It is contended by them that the petitioners should have been treated as having been regularly promoted W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 7 :: as Assistant Commandants with effect from an earlier date i.e. with effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted. According to them, their right to get their seniority in the post of Armed Police Sub Inspectors and Armed Police Inspectors stood determined by virtue of Ext.P7 judgment, which was affirmed by Exts.P9 and P10 judgments. 8. The defence taken up in the Contempt of Court Case was that though the petitioners contend that their seniority stood determined by Ext.P7 and P9 and P10, the Government found that several persons were given, out of turn promotion in the Armed Police Battalion as Armed Police Sub Inspectors and Armed Police Inspectors. Such promotions were in excess of the strength as mentioned in the Special Rules and Subordinate Service Rules. It, therefore, became necessary to create supernumerary posts and prescribe a criteria for supernumerary posts. The said issue requires to be considered afresh. A High Power Committee had been appointed to make recommendations comprehending the issue. The respondents further contended that there is no contempt as such. Taking note of the above submissions, the Division Bench of this court, W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 8 :: vide Ext.P13 judgment, closed the Contempt of Court Case with liberty to move appropriately, in case it is found necessary. 9. The proposals made by the High Power Committee was pleaded as a defence by the respondents. Ext.P13 came to be accepted by the Government and it proceeded to pass Ext.P14 order. Ext.P14 order comprehends not only the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.24870/07 but the petitioners in other writ petitions also. But the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.24870/07 specifically contend that though they were originally accommodated against supernumerary posts as Armed Police Sub Inspectors and thereafter as Armed Police Inspectors, their seniority is to be reckoned with reference to the date of appointment against supernumerary posts. If that be so, their services in the post of Armed Police Inspectors must be deemed to have been in excess with reference to the date mentioned in Ext.P2 order. Consequently, they must have been considered for regular promotions as well. Annexure I to Ext.P14 order relating to the Armed Police Inspectors considers the petitioners as having rendered as Armed Police Inspectors against supernumerary posts from 8.4.1995 W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 9 :: to 1.4.1997 and consequently, their seniority in the said post is proposed to be counted only with effect from the date of Ext.P2. They contend that they must be treated as having been regularly appointed to service as Armed Police Inspectors from 1991 and not as proposed under Ext.P14. They challenge Ext.P14 and also seek consequential reliefs. They affirm that they are entitled to the benefit of Ext.R1(a) referred to in Ext.P7 judgment, which itself is an affirmation of Rule 27(a) of Part II of the KSSR. They also challenge Ext.P14 order insofar as they are proposed to be treated as Assistant Commandants occupying supernumerary posts for the period from 1.4.1983 to 2.4.87. 10. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is contended that the petitioners have no cause of action as against Ext.P14. They were given out of turn posting to the category of Armed Police Sub Inspector and Armed Police Inspector in violation of the statutory rules. They are not entitled to get seniority. The quota of 2.5% available for out of turn post of Armed Police Sub Inspector was followed when the petitioners were given out of turn promotion and the same quota is W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 10 :: provided and prescribed in the Special Rules. The petitioners are given out of turn promotion to the post of Armed Police Inspectors as per Ext.P1 order. In effect, the petitioners were accommodated against supernumerary posts. 11. With reference to Ext.R1(a) and Ext.P7 judgment, it is contended that all that is mentioned in Ext.P7 is that the petitioners' seniority will be reckoned on the basis of Ext.R1(a) therein. Ext.R1 (a) therein only affirms Rule 27(a) of Part II of the KSSR. The petitioners are eligible to be accommodated only against vacancies which arises in the quota that is contemplated for sports persons in the Special Rules for State Service and State Subordinate Service, as the case may be. 12. Paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: “The process for the implementation of the recommendations of High Level Committee for the regularisation of the appointments of Sports Personnel in the AP Bn is underway. It has not reached the stage of fixation of Seniority position to anyone including the petitioners. For the implementation of the recommendations of the High Level Committee, Seniority lists of all categories (Havildar, APASI, APSI, API AC and DC) in the AP Bns, incorporating the Ext.P14 Government order, for the W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 11 :: years from 1984 onwards are to be prepared as per Rules in extreme clarity and transparency. All the parties, including the petitioners will be given ample opportunities to represent their grievances before finalising the seniority lists of all the categories in AP Battalions. 13. Accordingly, it is contended that the actual date of commencement of service insofar as the petitioners are concerned in the category of Armed Police Sub Inspectors and Armed Police Inspectors will have to be determined from the date of occurrence of the vacancy in the said two categories, capable of accommodating persons like the petitioners in the sports quota, as prescribed in the statutory rule. 14. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai and learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.P.Nandakumar. 15. The contention which was pressed forth by Sri.Aravindakshan Pillai in W.P.(C)No.24870/07 was that the respondents are not entitled to consider the petitioners as having rendered services as Armed Police Inspectors against supernumerary posts till and inclusive of 1.4.1997 as stipulated in Annexure I to Ext.P14. He contends that the petitioners commenced service as Armed Police W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 12 :: Inspectors with effect from 8.4.1991 and though they were accommodated against supernumerary posts, it was nevertheless a regular service as contemplated under Rule 27(a) of Part II of KSSR and therefore, their seniority in the cadre of Armed Police Inspectors must be regulated with effect from the date of Exts.P1 and P2 viz., 8.4.1991. This position has been affirmed, according to him, as per Ext.P7 judgment, which has been specifically reiterated in Ext.R1(a). That, in implementation of this assurance given in Ext.R1(a), as evidenced by Ext.P4 in W.P. (C)No.29950/07, the petitioners were absorbed against regular vacancies of Armed Police Inspectors in the first 4 regular vacancies in the cadre of Armed Police Inspectors subsequent to the date of Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.24870/07. Government is, therefore, not entitled to go back from the factual position. Ext.P14 is, therefore, to that extent, illegal and unsustainable, it is contended. 16. The first question to be considered in W.P.(C)No.24870/07 is, therefore, whether the seniority of the petitioners stands concluded as an issue by Ext.P7 judgment and affirmed by Exts.P9 and P10. If it is so, then obviously the Government, W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 13 :: which is also a party to the said writ petition, is not entitled to extend the period of commencement of regular service by the petitioners from 8.4.1991 to 1.4.1997, as is proposed under Ext.P14. 17. The submission made by Sri.Pillai with reference to Exts.P7 and P9 seems to be attractive at first blush. But, I am unable to accept the submission that the issue of seniority stands concluded by Ext.P7 and P9 judgment. What exactly is the direction in Ext.P7? Essentially, the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to reckon their seniority in the post of Armed Police Inspectors with reference to the date of Ext.P1 order, is not considered by this court on merits in Ext.P7. Sri.Pillai is right in his submission, that this court had declined to do so taking note of Ext.R1(a) produced therein. I have already extracted the contents of Ext.R1(a). It essentially affirms the fact that the seniority of any person in regular service is reckoned on his appointment and is determined by Rule 27(a) of the General Rules. Ext.R1(a) in Ext.P7 judgment, therefore, affirms that the petitioners are entitled to be accommodated against the next arising vacancies of Armed Police W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 14 :: Inspectors immediately after their appointment in the supernumerary posts. It was this stand taken by the Government that was given the seal of approval by this court and directed to be enforced under Ext.P7 judgment. Ext.P7 was again affirmed in Exts.P9 and P10 judgments. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to contend that they should be treated as eligible to be absorbed as Armed Police Inspectors in the next arising vacancies subsequent to their supernumerary appointments. Sri.Pillai submits that the next arising vacancies in the letter dated 10.11.1996 means any vacancy, which arises immediately after their supernumerary appointment. 18. Sri.Nandakumar, learned Senior Government Pleader submits that no such interpretation follows as a logical consequence out of the letter dated 10.11.1996 or Ext.P7 judgment. I find considerable force in the submission of Sri.Nandakumar. Neither the letter dated 10.11.1996 nor Ext.P7 judgment specifically contemplates commencement of regular service by the petitioners as Armed Police Inspectors in any vacancy, which arises after their supernumerary appointments. W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 15 :: There are no statutory rules which specifically deal with determination of seniority of persons appointed against supernumerary vacancies. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that commencement of service against supernumerary posts is commencement of regular service as such. I do not think it necessary to finally decide this issue, in the light of the fact that insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned, they affirm the stand taken in the letter dated 10.11.1996, which was directed to be implemented in Ext.P7 judgment. 20. If Ext.R1(a) and Exts.P6 and P7, therefore, do not specifically contemplate the petitioners' absorption in regular service against the vacancy which immediately occurred after supernumerary appointments, the further question is, which is the vacancy stated to be earmarked or to which they are entitled to right of accommodation as such. 21. Sri.Nandakumar submits that the promotion to the post of Armed Police Sub Inspector was out of turn and could be regularised only against vacancies which arose in the 2.5% quota W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 16 :: available for sportsmen as per the Note contained in the Special Rules for the State service. Insofar as the out of turn promotion to the post of Armed Police Inspectors are concerned, Sri.Nandakumar submits that no promotion quota is set apart in the category of Armed Police Inspectors comprehended by the State service and therefore, the very out of turn promotion given to the petitioners as per Ext.P1 may not be sustainable. But, nevertheless, they will have to be accommodated. The question as to the date on which they could be absorbed into the regular service of Armed Police Inspectors will have to be determined only after regularizing the services of the petitioners as Armed Police Sub Inspectors. It is this exercise, which has been undertaken in Ext.P4. He specifically refers to paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit, to buttress his contentions. 22. As held above, I am not in a position to accept Ext.R1(a) in Ext.P7 judgment or Ext.P7 judgment as affirmed in Exts.P9 and P10 judgments as conclusive of the seniority of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.24870/07 as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner. The question as to when the W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 17 :: vacancies, in the post of Armed Police Inspectors, had arisen subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners as Armed Police Sub Inspectors and the date on which they are entitled to absorption into regular service as Armed Police Inspectors, is a matter to be decided. 23. Having so found, I do not think it necessary, at this stage, to pronounce one way or the other, as regards the date from which the petitioners are entitled to reckon their seniority in the category of Armed Police Inspector or Assistant Commandant, as the case may be. I have already referred to paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit filed by the Government wherein there is affirmation of the date of occurrence of vacancies which could accommodate the persons in the category of Armed Police Inspectors and Assistant Commandants. The exercise is yet to be completed and the individual grievance of each one of the petitioners and other affected persons will be considered. While affirming the said stand, I also take it as necessary to make it clear that the tenure of the services of the petitioners in the category of Armed Police Inspectors against W.P.(C).NO.24870/07 & con.cases. :: 18 :: supernumerary posts as mentioned in Annexure I and the proposal on the part of the Government to treat the petitioners as continuing as Assistant Commandants against supernumerary posts even now, will have to be treated as purely tentative. The question as to the date on which the petitioners are to be treated as 'in regular service as Armed Police Inspectors' for the purpose of Rule 27(a) of Part II of KSSR, will have to be determined by the Government, after hearing the petitioners as also the contesting respondents and other affected persons. 24. But, I think, it is necessary to refer to another serious argument focused by Sri.Pillai with reference to Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.29950/07. Ext.P4 in the said writ petition is a proceedings issued by the Police Headquarters, stated to be in implementation of Ext.P7.