Judgment :- 1. The interpretation of R.1A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules as it no stands after amendment, made retrospective with effect from 6-3-1966, falls for consideration in this writ petition. This rule was substituted for the old rule by a G O. dated 28-8- 4 The original R.13A was inserted by a G. O dated 23-10- 62 2. The petitioners are now working as Junior Statistical Inspectors in the Department of Bureau of Economics and Statistics. They are post-graduates. Respondents 1 to 41 are gradates and non-graduates The Government by Order, G O. (P) No 256 dated 22nd June, 1966 prescribed Special Rules in respect of the Kerala Statistics and Economics Subordinate Services, evidenced by Ext. P1. These Special Rules prescribed the qualifications and method of appointments of Research Assistants/Statistical Inspectors, etc. These Special Rules were amended from time to time as is evident from Exts P2 to P4. The exemption granted as per these rules related to the passing of the Selective Tests in Applied Statistics and allied subjects conducted by the Public Service Commission. Before the Special Rules, promotions to the cadre of Research Assistants/ Statistical Inspectors etc. were being made only from among graduates who had taken some special subjects for their graduation. As per the Special Rules non-graduates also were eligible for promotion to these posts. 3. Under R.13A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules as it originally stood, where a pass in a special or departmental test is newly prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post, a member of a service who has not passed the test but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to such class, category, grade or posts, may within 2 years of the introduction of the test, be appointed thereto temporarily. Failure to pass the test within these two years or failure to undergo practical training, when necessary, within two years of the first chance to undergo such training would entail reversion. Thus under the Special Rules as it then stood, graduates and non-graduates bad 2 years time from 22-6-1966 for passing the test prescribed. The said period expired on 21-6-1968. 4. Respondents 1 to 41 had not passed the test. Time was being extended for them to pass the test. Many were aggrieved by such extension. Thus under the Special Rules as it then stood, graduates and non-graduates bad 2 years time from 22-6-1966 for passing the test prescribed. The said period expired on 21-6-1968. 4. Respondents 1 to 41 had not passed the test. Time was being extended for them to pass the test. Many were aggrieved by such extension. They challenged the same in O. P. No 5104 of 1970. This was heard by a Full Bench of this Court. As per the decision rendered by the Full Bench on 14-12-1972 and reported in ILR 1973 (1) Ker. 364, the extension granted was held invalid. Consequently persons who were promoted without the necessary test qualification during the original period allowed, were reverted and those entitled to promotion, promoted. Vide: Exts. P-5 and P-6. Even thereafter, the Government promoted some unqualified persons as per Exts. P-7 and P-8 Against these promotions the petitioner Sled Ext. P-9 representation. Exts. P-7 and P8 are under challenge in the writ petition. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 40th respondent reliance is placed upon R.13A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules as it now stands. Along with the counter affidavit respondents have produced Ext. RI which show the syllabus and the relevant details regarding the test to be conducted under Ext P1. It is specifically stated in Ext RI that the test will be held twice in every year. The test was conducted for the first time on 1-7-1968, then on 7-7-1969 and later on 27-4-1970 It is further stated that no test was conducted thereafter. It is further averred in the same paragraph that the Government admitted in the counter affidavit filed in O. P. No. 5104 of 1970 that the standard was very high so that non-graduates could not normally secure a pass. He has further stated that the Government have by now taken a decision that the test introduced in Ext. P1 is unnecessary and that suitable amendments have to be made in the special rules deleting the obligation regarding the passing of departmental tests is applied statistics and allied subjects for promotion to the cadre of Statistical Inspectors/ Research Assistants. That was toe reason for not conducting the test for the last four years and that the Government consider that there was no need to conduct the test in future. These are evident, according to the 40th respondent, from Exts. That was toe reason for not conducting the test for the last four years and that the Government consider that there was no need to conduct the test in future. These are evident, according to the 40th respondent, from Exts. R2 and R3. 6. It is further contended that under R.13A(3)(i) an allotted officer gets an additional time which shall be double that of the ordinarily permissible time. There should be two examinations in each year. This benefit is denied to them and therefore their seniority cannot be disturbed. The counter affidavit was filed as early as on 28th October, 1974. The averments in the counter affidavit have not been contraverted by filing a reply affidavit. 7. The effect of the amended R.13A was considered by Eradi, J. in O. P. 1708 of 1973. The learned judge held that as the rule stood, persons like respondents 1 to 41 before me should get 12 chances to sit for the examination, and therefore declined any relief to the petitioners in that O. P. I am told that the State took the matter in appeal and the appeal was dismissed in limine. Under these circumstances I have only to uphold the contentions of the respondents and dismiss this petition. 8. However, I would like to advert to the rule briefly and project the rival contentions placed before me so that it will be useful for the Government to bring in necessary amendments if they think it appropriate to avoid any anomaly in the rules. R.13A sub-rule (1) (a) deals with scheduled castes Of scheduled tribes. Rule (b) deals with others. Under rule (b) it is provided that where a pass in a special or departmental test is newly prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post therein or in any class thereof, a member of a service who has not passed the said test but is otherwise qualified, may be appointed thereto temporarily within two years of the introduction of the test. Under R.13A sub-clause (2) if a member of a service belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe does not pass the test within three years and others within the prescribed period, he shall be reverted to the class, category, grade or post from which he was appointed. This sub-clause contains a proviso. The proviso deals with scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. This sub-clause contains a proviso. The proviso deals with scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Under this proviso the period of temporary exemption allowed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be extended by three years in the case of a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. The proviso is neither happily nor correctly worded. The period of temporary exemption for scheduled castes or scheduled tribes is not indicated under clause (b) of sub-rule (1). We get this period only in sub-rule (2). Therefore reading R.13A(1)(a) and (2) with the proviso, it is clear that the members of service belonging to the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes will get originally a period of three years and then an extended period of three years. We are here concerned with R.13A(3)(i). This sub-rule applies to an allotted employee and provides for additional time for passing the test. I shall read the rule for a proper understanding of the contentions raised. R.13A(3) reads: "(3) If it is proposed to introduce any new test or tests of a higher standard the passing of which may be a condition precedent for benefits like increments, promotion, completion of probation etc., such test or tests shall be introduced only subject to the following conditions, namely: - (i) additional time, which shall be double that of the ordinarily permissible time for passing the test shall be allowed to an allotted employee, in cases where tests of a higher standard are prescribed or where no tests are prescribed in the parent State; This sub-rule shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 16-3-1966. The contention of the petitioners is that as per this rule, persons other than these belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes who belong to the "allotted employee" group can claim only an additional two years with the original two years permitted It is contended that if they are given 6 years as is the case put forward by them, the rule makes no difference between scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and those not belonging to that group in which case no separate sub-rule was necessary for the non-scheduled caste employes. This was the identical contention put forward before Eradi J in the writ petition mentioned above. I do not say that the submission now made is wholly without any substance. This was the identical contention put forward before Eradi J in the writ petition mentioned above. I do not say that the submission now made is wholly without any substance. But my function is only to interpret the rule as it stands and not to read into sub-rule (3) what is not there but what appears to be the intention of the Government. The expression used in sub-rule (3)(i) of R.13A is not ‘extended by two years' as we see in the proviso to sub-rule (2). If it were so, there would have been no difficulty But sub-clause (i) to sub-rule (3) uses the words 'additional time' 'which shall be double that of the ordinarily permissible time'. Literally construed, this sub-rule means that those persons who come within the benefit of this sub-rule get additional time which is double the original time. This sub-rule was construed by Eradi, J. as follows: "By virtue of sub-rule 3 of R.13A as it now stands, which is deemed to have come into force with effect from 16-3-1966 respondents 1 to 40 win are all officers allotted to the State of Kerala from the service of the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State are entitled to exemption from passing the selective test until they get at least 12 chances to appear for the said test." This observation is on the basis that tests were to be held twice in a year and if persons like respondents 1 to 41 get 6 years' exemption, then they are entitled to sit for 12 tests. The uncontroverted fact in this case is that only three tests were held. At the risk of repetition I would observe that the phraseology in sub-rule 3(i) 'additional time, which shall be double that of the ordinarily permissible time' has created all the confusion. Perhaps the Government intended only 4 years period to this group. But, the rule as it stands has to be interpreted. I hold that respondents 1 to 41 are entitled to 12 tests. They could not avail of these 12 tests since only 3 tests were conducted. Therefore the petitioners cannot claim any relief against respondents 1 to 41 or successfully challenge Exts. P7 and Ext. P8 and this writ petition therefore has to fail. This rule applies only to employees who were allotted to the Kerala State from the Travancore-Cochin service or from Madras. Therefore the petitioners cannot claim any relief against respondents 1 to 41 or successfully challenge Exts. P7 and Ext. P8 and this writ petition therefore has to fail. This rule applies only to employees who were allotted to the Kerala State from the Travancore-Cochin service or from Madras. If anyone among respondents 1 to 41 is found not to belong to the group of such allotted officers, the benefit of this judgment will not be available to them. 9. Before parting with this case I would like to observe that if the Government really intended to give h years to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and only 4 years to the allotted employees, sub-rule (3) will have to be suitably amended making the position clear. 10. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and with the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their costs.