JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. In matters relating to service conditions of employees under the Travancore Devaswom Board (‘Board’, for short), particularly transfer, Ext.P7 guidelines, dated 05.03.2022, admittedly apply. 2. While the appellant was working at ‘Thirunarayanapuram’ and the 5 th respondent at ‘Malayinkeezhu’, general transfers within the services of the ‘Board’ was effected, as evident from Ext.P3. Both persons were given the same stations where they were earlier working, and the transfers were thus completed. 3. Subsequently, a vacancy arose at ‘Parassala’, and both parties staked claim to be transferred there. 4. The Assistant Devaswom Commissioner of the ‘Board’, thereupon, issued Ext.P6 order, transferring the appellant to ‘Parassala’; against which, the 5 th respondent preferred Appeal before the Commissioner of the ‘Board’; which Authority issued Ext.P8 order, setting aside Ext.P6 and granting the transfer to the said respondent. 5. The appellant challenged Ext.P8 before the learned Single Judge of this Court, but the Writ Petition has been dismissed, finding the said order to be correct. 6. The appellant is, therefore, in Appeal before us. 7. Sri.Philip T.Varghese, learned counsel for the appellant, pointed out that the vacancy at ‘Parassala’ occurred after the general transfers were fully effected; and hence that going by Ext.P7 guidelines, particularly Clause 18 thereof, only the overall seniority of persons in service could be reckoned. He argued that this has been so correctly found in Ext.P6 order; but has been incorrectly overturned in Ext.P8. He prayed that the reliefs in this Writ Petition be granted. 8. Sri.P.U.Vinod Kumar - learned Standing Counsel for the Board, submitted that ‘overall seniority’ will be reckoned only if there is a difference in the ‘station seniority’. He argued that when, through the general transfer, both persons were allowed to continue in the same station, the ‘station seniority’ of the 5threspondent would have to be calculated from the first date on which he was so posted, and not from the date of the general transfer. He then relied on Clause 17 of Ext.P7, to argue that, even in case of filling up vacancies that arise after a general transfer, the norms for such transfer as available in Clauses 11(a) and (b) of Ext.P7 will have to be followed. He contended that since the 5th respondent has completed more than three years in his present station, while the appellant has not, he is the only one entitled to the transfer. 9. He contended that since the 5th respondent has completed more than three years in his present station, while the appellant has not, he is the only one entitled to the transfer. 9. Smt.G.Vidaya – learned counsel for the 5 th respondent, adopted the afore submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the ‘Board’; but supplementing it, saying that, since her client had completed more than three years at ‘Malayinkeezhu’, he is the only person deserving to be transferred to ‘Parassala’, going by Clauses 11(a) and (b) read with Clause 14 of Ext.P7. She added that, this is more so because, the said vacancy arose on account of the incumbent having been transferred earlier to Sabarimala. She pleaded that this Appeal be, consequently, dismissed. 10. The essential question thus is whether, for the purpose of effecting transfer of either of the parties to ‘Parassala’, their inter se seniority has to be reckoned ‘station- wise’, or ‘total seniority-wise’. 11. It is admitted by all sides that, in Ext.P7, when it comes to a vacancy after a General Transfer is effected, it is the ‘total seniority’ of a candidate which is to be reckoned; while, when it comes to a transfer otherwise, it is the ‘station seniority’ which has to be taken into account. 12. Going by the facts of this case, the appellant, concededly, is more senior than the 5 th respondent in total seniority – concededly, with him having put in 33 years, as against five years by the latter. 13. However, the assertion of the 5th respondent is that, both he and the appellant has not been ‘transferred’ in the general transfers – with both of them having been retained in their existing stations. He thus asserts that he has continued in ‘Malayinkeezhu’ for over three years; while, the appellant has completed only a one and a half year term at ‘Thirunarayanapuram’. His singular claim, therefore, is that he is having ‘station seniority’; and that he ought to be given the transfer to ‘Parassala’, going by Clause 11(b) of Ext.P7. 14. In opposition to this, the appellant relies upon Clause 18 of Ext.P7; and the question before us is which of the afore would apply in the factual matrix of this case. 15. 14. In opposition to this, the appellant relies upon Clause 18 of Ext.P7; and the question before us is which of the afore would apply in the factual matrix of this case. 15. As indited above, there is hardly any dispute that, when it comes to filling up a vacancy that arose after the general transfer, the person having ‘overall seniority’ would have to be preferred. 16. The relevant question here is whether the filling up of vacancy in ‘Parassala’, is consequent to a General Transfer or otherwise. 17. No doubt, in Ext.P3 order of general transfer, both the appellant and the 5 th respondent had been retained at the same places they were in. However, this does not mean that a general transfer was not effected; but, on the contrary, Ext.P3 luculently establishes that it had been completed. 18. Indubitably, therefore, when the General Transfer had been effected – albeit with both parties being retained in the same station - when the vacancy at ‘Parassala’ arose, only the ‘overall seniority’ could have been considered and not ‘station seniority’. This is especially because, once the general transfers had been effected, the ‘station seniority’ of both persons became the same; and this is uncontestable from Clause 18 of Ext.P7. 19. As seen earlier, the specific argument of Sri.Vinod Kumar and Smt.Vidya is that even for filling up of a vacancy that arose subsequent to the general transfer, the norms for such transfer will apply. They rely upon Clause 17 read with Clause 14 of Ext.P7 in substantiation and show us that, going by the norms for general transfer, it is a person who has completed three years in a particular station, who would get priority. Their contention is that since the fifth respondent has continued in the present station, even after the general transfer, for a cumulative period of over three years, he becomes entitled to transfer to Parassala in preference to the appellant. 20. No doubt, Clause 17 of Ext.P7 renders it clear that if there is a vacancy after the general transfer, the norms for general transfer will also have to be taken into account. But, Clause 18 mandates that the ‘station seniority’ of employees would be as per the date of the transfer order. 21. 20. No doubt, Clause 17 of Ext.P7 renders it clear that if there is a vacancy after the general transfer, the norms for general transfer will also have to be taken into account. But, Clause 18 mandates that the ‘station seniority’ of employees would be as per the date of the transfer order. 21. Coming to Clause 11(b) of Ext.P7, it provides the criteria to be followed in the case of general transfer and stipulates that if there are rival claims between a person who has put in three years of service in a particular station and one who has not, the former would obtain preference. It is based on the interplay of these Clauses that the fifth respondent has made his claim for transfer to Parassala through Ext.P5. 22. As noticed above, there is hardly any doubt that once the general transfers are effected, Clause 18 of Ext.P7 would require the ‘station seniority’ of candidates to be reckoned thereafter, from the date of the transfer order. 23. In this case, both candidates were subjected to general transfer, though they were retained in the same stations, as they were earlier. This does not mean that general transfers had not been effected. Obviously, therefore, going by Clause 17 of Ext.P7, the vacancy at Parassala can only be construed to be one that occurred after the general transfer. No doubt, the said clause also provides that the general transfer norms should be applied even in filling up such vacancies. Therefore, even if we are to take so, going by Clause 11(b) of Ext.P7, both the candidates are to be taken to have put in the same amount of time in the present stations because, as seen supra, Clause 18 edifices their inter se seniority on the date of the order of the general transfer. 24. Consequently, even going by the submissions of Sri.Vinod Kumar, one can only reckon that both candidates have the same seniority in their respective stations; and it is here that Clause 14 of Ext.P7 comes to play. This Clause provides that if there are two candidates seeking transfer to the same vacancy, their ‘total seniority’ will have to be considered. 24. Consequently, even going by the submissions of Sri.Vinod Kumar, one can only reckon that both candidates have the same seniority in their respective stations; and it is here that Clause 14 of Ext.P7 comes to play. This Clause provides that if there are two candidates seeking transfer to the same vacancy, their ‘total seniority’ will have to be considered. We are without doubt that, once the general transfer had been effected, the ‘station seniority’ alone could have been taken into account for considering for the transfer to Parassala; and in such perspective, we cannot find Ext.P8 to obtain favour in law. 25. Resultantly, we cannot grant imprimatur to the judgment of the learned Single Judge either. In such circumstances, we allow this Appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as also Ext.P8 order; and consequently approve Ext.P6 order.