Lien and promotion eligibility on inter-service appointment preserved where confirmation was never ordered.

Rule 8 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 continued to apply to employees appointed to another service on their own applications where the appointments fell within the deeming fiction in Note 1, namely applications invited, sponsored or recommended by the Government or competent authority in the exigencies of public service. On the recorded facts, the employees' transfers to the Co-operative Department satisfied that condition. Their lien in the former service was not lost merely because they had completed probation, as lien arises only on confirmation and permanence. As no confirmation order had been issued in the Co-operative Department, they retained the relevant protection and could not be excluded from consideration in the promotion list.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 8 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 applied to employees who had been appointed to another service on their own applications, and whether they retained lien and eligibility for inclusion in the promotion list in the former service.

Analysis: Rule 8 excludes the benefit of the rule where appointment to another service is solely on the employee's own application, unless the appointment is made in the exigencies of public service. Note 1 creates a deeming fiction by treating appointments made pursuant to applications invited, sponsored or recommended by the Government or other competent authority as appointments made in the exigencies of public service. That fiction must be given full effect. On the factual findings recorded, the employees' appointments in the Co-operative Department fell within Note 1. The further contention that they had lost their lien was rejected because mere completion of probation did not amount to confirmation, and lien on a post arises only upon confirmation and permanence. The findings that no order of confirmation had been passed in the Co-operative Department supported the conclusion that they had not lost the relevant protection.

Conclusion: Rule 8 applied, the employees remained entitled to the benefit of the rule, and their names could not be excluded from consideration on the ground that they had lost lien in the former service.

---