MODI, J.—This is a writ petition by Fatehchand under Art. 226 of the Constitution and arises under the following circumstances : The petitioner was first appointed as a clerk on work charge basis in Motor . Section of the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Works, Jaipur, by an order dated 9th May, 1952. Thereafter, by order dated 2nd February, 1955, he was appointed a Lower Division Clerk in the same office as a temporary measure for a period of six months in the first instance with effect from 1st January, 1955, against a permanent vacancy. He continued to hold this appointment until the 1st March, 1965. On 2nd March, 1965, he was served with a notice by the Chief Engineer (Health), Rajasthan, that his services were to be terminated with effect from one month of the issue of this letter. The reason for this termination was that the petitioner had failed to pass two departmental examinations for the recruitment of Lower Division Clerks, first in June, 1964, and the second in November, 1964. Thereupon the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Engineer, and the actual termination of his service remained in abeyance (for certain reasons into which it is unnecessary to go for the purpose of the present writ petition) until 25th August, 1965 (Ex-9) when by a letter dated 25th August, 1965, the petitioner was informed that his representation had been considered and rejected by the Government and, therefore, he was being served with one months notice of termination of service and that the same shall stand terminated on the expiry of one month from the issue of this letter. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed the present writ application in this Court on 24th September, 1965. It may also be stated before proceeding further that the petitioner is a matriculate and that he was about 35 years of age at the time his services were sought to be terminated. 2. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed the present writ application in this Court on 24th September, 1965. It may also be stated before proceeding further that the petitioner is a matriculate and that he was about 35 years of age at the time his services were sought to be terminated. 2. The petitioners case put in a nutshell is that although he was a temporary employee, he held his post against a permanent vacancy, that he had put in more than 10 years service as such and, therefore, the State was not entitled to terminate his service in the manner in which it was sought, just by giving a months notice, and that his services as temporary clerk were fully protected under Rule 23-A (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, hereinafter called the "Rules". 3. The State has opposed this writ petition and its defence is that Rule 23-A (2) is not attracted into application in this case, the chief reason being that the petitioner had failed to pass the departmental examination even in two attempts, and, that being so, his services were liable to be terminated in accordance with Government Order No. F. 15(1) OW/64 dated 5th March, 1964, Ex. A/1, made under the second proviso to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957, hereinafter called the "Ministerial Staff Rules", by which it was provided, inter alia, that in case a candidate failed a second time in the departmental examination his service will be terminated after due notice, unless otherwise he seeks his appointment through the regular channel prescribed in the services rules concerned. 4. At this stage we shall read Rule 23-A of the Rules : "23-A(1) Except as otherwise provided in sub-rule (2), the service of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. 4. At this stage we shall read Rule 23-A of the Rules : "23-A(1) Except as otherwise provided in sub-rule (2), the service of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. The period of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed to by the Government and by the Government servant : 197 Provided that service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay for the period of notice or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of the month or any agreed longer period. The payment of allowances shall be subject to the condition under which such allowances are admissible. (2) The service of a temporary Government servant,— (a) who has been in continuous Government service for more than three years; and (b) who satisfies the suitability in respect of age and qualifications prescribed for the post and has been appointed in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary, shall be liable to termination (1) in the same circumstances and in the same manner as a Government servant in permanent service: or (ii) when reduction has occurred in the number of posts available for Government Servants not in permanent service : Provided that termination of service consequent on reduction of posts in a cadre under the appointing authority shall take place in order of juniority." 5. The second proviso to Rule 7 of the Ministerial Staff Rules reads as follows : "(2) Provided that a person who joined service on a temporary basis before 1st January, 1962, shall be made permanent as a Lower Division Clerk or an Upper Division Clerk, as the case may be, on his/her passing an examination to be held by the Appointing Authority concerned, on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Government." 6. These terms and conditions,, it has been argued before us on behalf of the State, have been laid down by the Government in the Government Order dated 5th March, 1964, already referred to, whereunder among other terms and conditions it has also been laid down that "in case a candidate fails a second time his service will be terminated after due notice unless otherwise he seeks his appointment through the regular channel prescribed in the service rules concerned." 7. We may as well point out at this stage that by Rule 11 of the Ministerial Staff Rules it has been laid down that a candidate for direct recruitment to any cadre of subordinate service including a Lower Division Clerk must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 25 years on the first day of January, of the year following the last date fixed for the receipt of applications, provided that upon 31st December, 1958, the period of continuous Government service in temporary capacity shall be deducted from age for purposes of eligibility. By Rule 12(2) of these Rules it has been further laid down that a candidate for direct recruitment to the category of Lower Division Clerks must have passed the High School or Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Board, or of a University or Board recognised by the Government for the purpose of this rule, or must possess Hindi or Sanskrit qualifications recognised by the Government as equivalent to that of Matriculation. 8. From what we have stated above, it should be clear, and it is indeed incapable of being disputed, that the petitioner was of the requisite age and also possessed the necessary academic qualification prescribed for the post of a Lower Division Clerk. We may also make it clear that it has not been contested before us that his appointment was required to be made in consultation with the Public Service Commission of the State. 9. That being so, the short point for our determination is, whether the services of the petitioner could lawfully be terminated under R. 23-A(2) by giving him one months notice of termination of his services. 9. That being so, the short point for our determination is, whether the services of the petitioner could lawfully be terminated under R. 23-A(2) by giving him one months notice of termination of his services. Sub-rule(l) of R. 23-A lays down the broad rule that the service of a temporary Government servant may be terminated at any time by a notice in writing which may be given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant, such notice being of one months duration unless otherwise agreed to between the parties concerned. It has also been provided that such service could be terminated by the Government forthwith by giving the employee one months pay for the period of notice or for the period by which such notice falls short of the month or any agreed longer period. This rule has, however, been expressly made subject to the exception provided in sub-rule (2). This exception provides that where (i) a temporary Government servant has been in continuous Government service for more than three years ; and (ii) he fulfils the necessary requirements as to age and qualifications prescribed for the post (and has been appointed in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary, but this condition is not material in the present case) then his service could not be terminated in the manner prescribed under the first sub-rule, but it is liable to be terminated in the same circumstances and in the same manner as a Government servant in permanent service, that is, for proved misconduct; or, when reduction has occurred in the number of temporary posts required to be filled, in which case it has been further laid down that the last to come shall be the first to go. The language of this rule is plain enough and in our opinion, does not call for any interpretative effort. The language of this rule is plain enough and in our opinion, does not call for any interpretative effort. And all that it clearly envisages is that inspite of the general rule to the contrary the services of a temporary Government servant who has been in continuous Government service for more than three years, who fulfils the necessary requirements in respect of age and the (academic) qualifications prescribed for the post, could not be terminated by a mere one months notice of termination of service under sub-rule (1) of Rule 23-A, and such service could properly be terminated only under the two conditions laid down in this rule which we have adverted to above. 10. It has been strenuously argued before us, however, by the learned Dy. Government Advocate, appearing for the State, that in interpreting Rule 23-A(2) we should take into account the proviso (2) to Rule 7 of the Ministerial Staff Rules which in effect lays down that a person who has joined service on a temporary basis before 1st January, 1962, cannot be confirmed until he has passed the departmental examination on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Government and our attention has been pointedly drawn in this connection to the order of the Government dated 5th March, 1964, which, among other conditions, laid down for this purpose, definitely provides that if a candidate happens to fail in the departmental examination twice, his services would be liable to be terminated after due notice. We have given this contention our careful and anxious consideration and do not see our way to accept it. In the first place, we are of opinion that the object of the second proviso to Rule 7 of the Ministerial Staff Rules is entirely different from that underlying in Rule 23-A(2) of the Rules. The former lays down that before a temporary Lower Division Clerk could be made permanent he must pass the necessary departmental examination. This proviso does not contemplate what is to happen to such a Government servant on his failure to pass the required examination. Rule 23-A, on the other hand, does not deal with confirmation at all. It lays down the mode by which the services of a temporary Government servant could be dispensed with. This proviso does not contemplate what is to happen to such a Government servant on his failure to pass the required examination. Rule 23-A, on the other hand, does not deal with confirmation at all. It lays down the mode by which the services of a temporary Government servant could be dispensed with. It first lays down the ordinary manner, and thereafter provides a safeguard for such of these servants who have been in long continuous Government service, that is, for a period exceeding three years and who fulfilled the necessary requirements as to age and the qualifications for the post prescribed in the Rules at the time of their original recruitment. The purpose and the object of the two sets of provisions being distinct, it would not be correct, in our opinion, to import the considerations underlying the one into the other. 11. We feel further fortified in coming to this conclusion because, if we were to give the extended meaning to sec. 23-A(2). as contended for by the learned Dy. Government Advocate, in the sense that the word "qualifications" as used therein embraces the requirement of the passing of a departmental examination also, then this provision would appear to become more or less otiose, because a temporary candidate who, in addition to possessing the other qualifications, academic and as to age, must also have passed the departmental examination, in which case such a person would obviously be entitled to be made permanent by virtue of the provision contained in Rule 7(2) of the Ministerial Staff Rules and would hardly need any protection as a temporary servant as contemplated under Rule 23-A(2) of the Rules. We have, therefore, not felt persuaded to hold that the interpretation of Rule 23-A(2) proposed by the learned Deputy Government Advocate is correct. 12. We should further like to point out in this connection that as at present advised we are disposed to think that the provision made in condition No. 4 of the Government order dated 5th March, 1964 (Ex. A/1), really falls outside the ambit of the second proviso to Rule 7 of the Ministerial Staff Rules under which it has avowedly been made because a condition like this cannot be strictly said to be a term or condition of the examination to be held thereunder. A/1), really falls outside the ambit of the second proviso to Rule 7 of the Ministerial Staff Rules under which it has avowedly been made because a condition like this cannot be strictly said to be a term or condition of the examination to be held thereunder. More appropriately it can be said that it is the consequence of a candidate failing to pass such an examination, inasmuch as it has been laid down that if he fails to pass it in two attemps, his services would be liable to be terminated by giving him one months notice. 13. Assuming, however, for the sake of argument that such a condition could be laid down under Rule 7(2) of the Ministerial Staff Rules we are faced with a further formidable difficulty namely, that such a condition would come into inevitable conflict with Rule 23-A(2) of the Rules. To read the provision contained in the Government order in question as falling within the meaning of Rule 23-A(2), would clearly amount to import something into it which is not there. Putting the whole thing in plain language it would mean the addition of one more condition in sub-rule (2) to the effect that such a temporary Government servant must not have failed twice in a departmental examination held for the purposes of his confirmation. We have no doubt that it is not our province as a Court of law to add something to Rule 23-A which does not exist therein and we are not prepared to do anything of the kind. There is one factor which we cannot omit to take into consideration in this connection that Rule 23-A as it exists at present, was amended on the 1st January, 1965, that is, after the Government order dated 5th March, 1964, Ex. A-l came to be passed and on which the learned Deputy Government Advocate strongly relies. If these two provisions cover the same field in part, then we have no hesitation in saying that the latter provision should be read as superseding the former pro tanto and in that view of the matter the Government order in question must yield to Rule 23-A(2). 14. If these two provisions cover the same field in part, then we have no hesitation in saying that the latter provision should be read as superseding the former pro tanto and in that view of the matter the Government order in question must yield to Rule 23-A(2). 14. It has been argued before us in the last resort that the meaning that we have put on Rule 23-A would lead to the result that although a person could not be confirmed because of his failure to have passed the necessary examination or examinations the Government could not ask him to quit and will have to retain him in service. It it also argued in this connection that a person who fails to pass the departmental examination not in one, but even in two attempts, is hardly suitable to be retained in service. The argument may be plausible but has no substance in it. The chief reason which has persuaded us to come to this conclusion is that if there is any anomaly in the situation that is of the Governments own making, and it is not for us to resolve it by putting an artificial interpretation upon Rule 23-A. The remedy lies in the hands of the rule making authority and it was open to it to have fashioned Rule 23-A in a wider mould than at present. As we look at the matter, Rule 23 A is obviously intended to give adequate protection to temporary servants of the Government who have long been employed and who otherwise fulfilled all the requirements as to age and other qualifications prescribed for the post, and, we are, by no means, sure that the purpose behind this rule would be better fulfilled by an insistence on a candidates capacity to pass a departmental examination which after all is said and done, Government servants having been drawn away for a long time from their academic life may not easily hope to pass. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, we are on the whole, definitely inclined to hold that the order dated 25th August, 1965 (Ex-9), by which the petitioners service is ordered to be terminated by one months notice is illegal and inoperative as being violative of Rule 23 A (2) of the Rules and we hereby quash it. Under the circumstances we make no order as to costs.