Gyan Sudha Misra ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment/order of the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 24th May, 2006 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1774 of 2003. By that judgment the writ appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 24th September, 2003 has been dismissed.
3. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
4. The dispute in this appeal is about the inter se seniority on the post of Block Development Officer between the general category candidates (the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates (the Appellants herein).
5. The rule relevant for this purpose is Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules'), which states:
27(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice 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 advice list.
6. A perusal of the above rule shows that seniority is to be determined by the date of first effective advice made by the Public Service Commission to the State Government for appointment.
7. Admittedly, in the present case, the first effective advice for the Appellants was made by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 8.7.1992, and they joined between 13.8.1992 and 22.10.1992 whereas the advice for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was made on 6.4.1993, and they were appointed as B.D.O. On 28.9.1993 and they joined between 6.10.1993 and 17.11.1993. Hence, it is obvious from Rule 27(c) of the Rules that the Appellants are senior to the private Respondents. However, both the learned Single Judge and Full Bench have held in favour of the Respondents.
8. We have carefully perused the judgments of the Full Bench and the learned Single Judge, and we regret we cannot agree with them.
9. The Full Bench and Single Judge have relied on equity, justice and good conscience, rather than law. We are of the opinion that this approach is incorrect. When there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which is to prevail. Equity can only supplement the law when there is a gap in it, but it cannot supplant the law.
10. In the present case, Rule 27(c) clearly makes the Appellants senior to the Respondents as the advice for their appointments were made prior to that for the Respondents.
11. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the private Respondents, however, submitted that due to certain obstructions for which the private Respondents are not to be blamed, their first effective advice was sent later. Mr. Shekhar submitted that the rank list for the Respondents was prepared after due selection on 25.11.1987, but the advice was not sent by the