State of Gujarat v. M. A. Kadri — 1978 DIGILAW 27 (GUJ)

JUDGMENT : N. H. Bhatt, J. The Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 331 of 1977 and 14 of 1978 respectively are filed by the original respondents Nos. 3 to 25 and the State of Gujarat and the Collector of Sabarkantha, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the Special Civil Application No. 331 of 1977, they being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23-11-1977, delivered by the learned Single Judge (S.H. Sheth. JJ of this Court Similarly, the Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 332 of 1977 and 13 of 1978 are directed against the judgment in the Special Civil Application No. 1189 of 1977 disposed of by the very learned Judge. S H. Sheth, along with the above mentioned Special Civil Application No. 1104 of 1977 The Letters Patent Appeal Mo. 332 of 1977 has been preferred by the original respondents Nos. 1 to 33 whereas the Letters Patent Appeal No. 13 of 1978 is preferred by the State of Gujarat and the Collector of Broach The Special Civil Application No. 1681 of 1977 is filed by the petitioners, being the employees of the office of the Collector, Ahmedabad and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the State of Gujarat and the Collector, Ahmedabad and the rest of the respondents Nos. 3 to 22 are other employees in the office of the Collector, Ahmedabad. This Special Civil Application No. 1681 of 1977 would come to be decided one way or the other according to the ratio laid down by this Division Bench while disposing of the above mentioned four letters patent appeals. With the concurrence of the learned advocates in this special civil application No. 1681 of 1977 it is heard along with those Letter Patent Appeals. As the questions involved in these five proceedings or rather three proceedings rest on the common point involved, all these five proceedings are disposed of by this common judgment with the concurrence of the advocates concerned. 2. A few facts require to be stated. The reference to the parties in appeals hereinafter will be made with reference to their capacities in the Special Civil Applications. In the judgment that now follows the appellants private parties will be referred to as the respondents, whereas the respondents will be referred to as the petitioners The State and the concerned Collector will be referred to as the State and the Collector. In the judgment that now follows the appellants private parties will be referred to as the respondents, whereas the respondents will be referred to as the petitioners The State and the concerned Collector will be referred to as the State and the Collector. This reference is so envisaged for the purpose of clarity and convenience of expression. 3. The petitioners in all the three proceedings are the employees in the respective collectorate in the respective districts of Sabarkantha, Broach and Ahmedabad. The petitioners in these three proceedings are all officiating as Deputy Mamlatdars on promotion. The respondents in these three petitions are also officiating as Deputy Collectors. In all the three matters, the concerned Collector had passed orders reverting the petitioners to their original positions prior to promotion on the ground that they had failed to pass the requisite examination known as the Revenue Qualifying Examination, pursuant to the Revenue Qualifying Examination Rules, 1970 made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the existing rules and orders made in that behalf. In all the cases, reversion was sought to be effected pursuant to Rule 8 of the Revenue Qualifying Examination Rules, 1970. The terms "Revenue Qualifying Examination" hereinafter will be referred to as RQE for brevity's sake The said Rule 8 reads as follows :- "in the event of a qualified person not being available for promotion to the higher post, an unqualified person whose chances to pass the examination are not exhausted under rule 4 or 5 may be promoted to officiate in the higher post, subject to the condition that he shall be reverted on the availability of a person qualified for promotion or on his failure to pass the examination within the period and according to the chances specified in rule 4 or 5 whichever event occurs earlier." It is the common case that the petitioners in all the three proceedings are unqualified persons which term as per the explanation appended to Rule 8 quoted above means members of the subordinate revenue service who have not passed the RQE as per the requirements of the Rules, the scheme of which will be instantly examined threadbare by us. 4. 4. Before we go to the consideration of the various Rules of the RQE Rules, the historical aspect of these services deserves to be specifically noted. To run the administration in the Districts, the State maintained subordinate revenue services as defined in Cl. (t) of R.Q E, Rule No. I which reads as under : - "2(i) "Subordinate Revenue Service" includes persons appointed as Clerks and Circle Inspectors in the lower division and Aval Karkuns and Circle Officers in the Upper Division." In the lower division there are clerks and Circle Inspectors and in the upper division, there are Aval Karkuns (now designated as Deputy Mamlatdars) and Circle Officers. There is a provision in the Bombay Civil Services Classification and Recruitment Rules for promotion of the employees in the lower division to the posts in the upper division. all the petitioners and the respondents had joined the subordinate revenue service as Clerks and in the course of time, they had come to be promoted as Aval Karkuns, now known as Deputy Malatdars. In all the three matters, the impugned orders have been passed by the concerned Collector, reverting the petitioners on the ground that they were qualified persons, who had failed to pass the RQE within the period and according to the chances specified in Rules 4 or 5 whichever event occurred earlier The respondents in these petitions, the petitioners contend, are also similarly situated. According to the petitioners, these respondents also have failed to pass the RQE within the period and within the chances specified in Rules 4 and 5 and they for alt practical purposes are similarly situated with the petitioners. The petitioners contend that they are senior to the respondents and if the occasion o revert arises, they should be equally treated and that, by retaining the respondents in service while reverting the petitioners, the State of Gujarat and the Collector practise discrimination in the matter of employment by violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As against that, it is the case of the respondents, the State of Gujarat and the concerned Collector, that the petitioners had lost all the chances and they are unqualified persons in terms of Rule 8 of the RQE rules whereas that respondents are not the persons who can be said to have failed to pass the said examination within the period and according to the chances. It is this factual controversy resting on the interpretation of the relevant Rules that is the bone of contention in these three proceedings. 5. Instantly, it is to be noted that the posts of Aval Karkuns (now Deputy Mamlatdars) in the Revenue Department are to be filed in by way of promotion and by nomination. Those who come to this cadre by nomination are designated as direct recruits. The term "direct recruits" has been defined in these rules as persons appointed as Aval Karkun otherwise than by promotion from a lower post. Such direct recruits are required to pass the RQE during the probation period of two years for the date of joining service, which period as per Rule 3 of the RQE rules can be extended in certain circumstances. As per rule 6(1) of the RQE Rules, if a direct recruit fails to pass the examination as required under these rules, his services shall be terminated, but the proviso to RQE Rule 6(1) lays down that the Government in certain contingencies may give him one more chance to appear at the examination. This is only by way of incidental reference and it is more or less an irrelevant factor in these petitions except for one small aspect, which shall be suitably dealt with at its proper place. Rule 4 as it was prior to its amendment on 21-1-75 and it is now stands are reproduced below side-by-side because in final analysis, the rates of these three proceedings will be required to be decided one way or the other on their interpretation and scope. "4. Subject to the provisions of rule 5, every person of the lower division of the subordinate revenue service, who is eligible for appointment to a higher post, shall be required to pass the Revenue Qualifying Examination within a period of three years after he had completed five years continuous service : Provided that a person shall not be entitled to appear at the said examination unless he has passed the sub-service departmental examination for Revenue Department or has been exempted from passing that examination. 4. 4. Subject to the provisions of rule 5 (1) every person of the lower division of the subordinate revenue service, who is eligible for appointment to a higher post, shall be required to pass the revenue qualifying examination after he has completed five years continuous service and within a period of three years from the date he is granted permission to appear at revenue qualifying examination for the first time strictly according to his seniority in accordance with the provisions of rule 11. Provided further that, if the period for passing the examination as provided in this rule expires before the date of holding of the examination, in the case of candidate who has a last chance at the said examination, the said period shall, in the case of such candidate, be extended up to the date of declaration of the result of the next examination. (2) every such person who has already completed five years service on the appointed date but was not permitted to appear at the examination shall be required to pass the examination during a period of three years from the date he is granted permission to appear at the revenue qualifying examination strictly according to the seniority in accordance with the provisions of rule 11, for the first time after the appointed date. Provided further that the persons specified in this rule who have already completed five years service on the appointed date, but were not permitted to appear at the examination shall be required to pass the examination during a period of three years from the appointed date. Provided that where a person does not seek under Cl. (1) or (2) permission to appear in the examination the period of three years shall be computed from the date when his junior is granted such permission: Provided further that a person shall not be entitled to appear at the said examination unless he has passed the sub-service departmental examination for Revenue Department or has been exempted from passing that examination : Provided also that if the period for passing the examination as provided in this rule expires before the date of holding of the examination, in the case of candidate who has a last chance at the said examination, the said period shall, in the case of such candidate, be extended up to the date of declaration of the result of the next examination". Then Rules 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the Rules read as under :- "5. The examination shall have to be passed in not more than three chances within the specified period: Provided that the chances already availed of before the appointed date under the old rules shall be counted as having been availed of under these rules : Provided further that persons belonging to the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes may be allowed one additional chance which shall have to be availed of within a period of one year from the date of the declaration of the result of the examination at which the last normal chance should have been availed of 7. A person (other than a direct recruit) who has failed to pass the examination within the specified period and chances during the prescribed period, shall, notwithstanding such failure, be eligible to appear at any time in such examination, on payment of an examination fee of Rs. 15 and on passing of such examination he shall be eligible for confirmation and promotion to the higher post : Provided that he shall not be entitled to claim seniority over those persons, who may have passed the examination earlier. 9. A person who passes the examination within the specified chances and the specified period shall retain his original seniority in the Upper Division of the subordinate revenue service even if a person junior to him has passed the examination and also been promoted to higher post earlier : Provided that the persons permitted to appear at the examination under third proviso to rule 4, the second proviso to rule 5 and the provision to sub-rule (1) to rule 6 shall not rank the seniority higher than those who have already passed the examination under the old rules. 10. The examination shall ordinarily be held by the Commission twice a year in the months of April and October : Provided that, if the number of candidates desirous of appearing at any examination is in excess of the seats available, one or more examinations may be held in addition to the examination to be held in April and October in consultation with the Commission : Provided further that if the Commission decides to change the month in which the examination is to be held. it shall communicate its decision to the Government and the Collectors and also specify the last date by which applications of candidates may be forwarded to it. 11. The Collector shall, from time to time, communicate to Government the names and particulars of persons belonging to 'Subordinate Revenue Service' and 'direct recruits' who are eligible to appear at the examination as per rules and who wish to appear at the examination, strictly according to their seniority. Government will arrange their names according to their seniority and select 200 senior most persons out of the persons from all districts who are to be allowed to appear at the Revenue Qualifying Examination :- 12(1). A candidate who desires to appear at the examination shall send his application for registering his name as a candidate for such examination to the Secretary of the Commission in the form in Appendix A through the Collector concerned at least 60 days before the date of the commencement of the examination. The Collector shall scrutinise the application with regard to eligibility of the candidate for appearing at the examination and forward it to the Secretary of the Commission. If the applicant subsequently desires not to appear at the examination for which his name has been registered by the Commission, he shall give intimation to the Secretary of the Commission through the Collector concerned at least 30 days before the date of commencement of the examination. In the event of any person failing to appear at an examination after having registered his name as a candidate for appearing there at but without intimating as aforesaid, he shall be deemed to have lost once chance to pass the examination :- Provided that the State Government may condone the failure on the part of the person to give intimation as aforesaid and the consequences arising therefrom, if it is satisfied that the person had failed to give intimation or appear at the particular examination for reasons beyond his control : Provided further that the representations, if any, against loss of chance should be dealt with by the Collector concerned. A candidate should, therefore, make such representation to the Government through the Collector who shall forward it to the Revenue Department with remarks. A candidate should, therefore, make such representation to the Government through the Collector who shall forward it to the Revenue Department with remarks. (2) The Commission shall admit the candidates to the examination on the strength of a certificate given by the Collector concerned that they are eligible to appear at the examination. 13. The total number of candidates who desire to appear at an examination after exhausting the specified chances shall be limited to-one third of the total number of candidates so that the two thirds number of seats can be allotted to the candidates desiring to appear at the examination within the specified period." 6. Rule 4 which came into operation with effect from the appointed day, that is 15-12-70, laid down that every employee of the lower division of the Subordinate Revenue Service, who was a eligible for appointment to a higher post, was required to pass the RQE within a period of three years, after he had completed five years continue service The first proviso lays down that no employee could appear at the R. Q. E. unless he had passed the sub service Departmental Examination for Revenue Department or has been exempted from passing the same. The second proviso deals with the situation where three years period expires before the declaration of the result of the last examination in the third year. The third proviso deals with the persons who were required to pass the R. Q. E. in this rules after completion of five years on the appointed day but would not be permitted to appear for the same during the period of three years from the appointed day, namely 15-12-70. This last proviso has not much bearing in our cases because both the petitioners and the respondents are admittedly governed by the main part of the rule 4. 7. Rule 5 lays down a further restriction. As per the scheme of Rule 10, the examination was ordinarily to be held by the Gujarat Public Service Commission twice in a year in the month of April and October. It would, therefore, but for Rule 5 mean that employees could appear at all the minimum six numbers of examinations. Rule 5, therefore, provided that an employee could take his three chances and not more within that three years period. It would, therefore, but for Rule 5 mean that employees could appear at all the minimum six numbers of examinations. Rule 5, therefore, provided that an employee could take his three chances and not more within that three years period. In other words, an employee may appear in the last of the six examination, if he is confident enough to pass it at the first time. In other words, Rule 5 further curtailed the normal six chances of three. Rule 7 gives a further opportunity to every employee who has failed to pass the examination within the period of three years and within three chances Even after missing the opportunities under rules 4 and 5, he can appear at the examination at his own costs, subsequently by or. three years and beyond three chances; but only light he will get on such success would be his right to promotion and confirmation. But in that case, on the basis of his seniority in the lower cadre, be will not be able to claim seniority over those persons, who had passed the examination within three years and three chances. This rule 7 is not happily worded. It speaks of eligibility for confirmation and promotion to the higher post. If Rule 8 is read, as it should be read, it would make clear that, even if the man is promoted on ad hoc basis in the expectation of passing the R.Q.E. within three years and three chances he shall be liable to be reverted even" on his failure to pass the examination within the period and according to the chances specified in rule 4 or 5 whichever event occurs earlier." In other words, Rule 8 very clearly lays down that those who have exhausted the three chances and three years without any success shall at once be liable to be reverted because of their failure to pass the examination. In other words, they shall have no right to the promotional post. All the petitioners in all these proceedings are the persons of this category. By virtue of the mandatory requirement of Rule 8, they are liable to be reverted because of their failure to pass the examination within three years and three chances. In other words, they shall have no right to the promotional post. All the petitioners in all these proceedings are the persons of this category. By virtue of the mandatory requirement of Rule 8, they are liable to be reverted because of their failure to pass the examination within three years and three chances. If the Government continues them on that promotional post, despite their failure to pass the examination within three years and three chances, it is not his right, but if the Government continues him, it would be because of the requirements of administrative interests Rule 8, therefore, very clearly lays down that the employees whose chances are lost under rules 4 and 5 were liable to be reverted, but if they were at all continued, they would be liable to be reverted also on the eventuality of the availability of qualified persons. Two distinct clauses in the body of the main rule 8 are intended to be disjuncted and this is the only reasonable interpretation that can be placed on rule 8. It is already noted above that the petitioners who are admittedly such written off persons (except for the purpose of rule 7 referred to above), cannot claim to be retained in the promotional post on the ground that the respondents are also of the same category. When the petitioners have no right, they cannot be heard to say that the respondents are also of the same type. If the Government believes and considers that the respondents have still some chances left, even if the Government is erroneous in this belief of theirs, no right of the petitioners could be said to have been violated. We are going to show, however, below that the respondents constitute a different class altogether and that they were intended to be saved by the amended rule 4. 8. When the rules 10 and 11 were framed, the whole spectrum of circumstances and possibilities was not kept before the eyes. It seems to have been thought then that ordinarily holding of two examinations in a year of the possibility of holding one of more examinations in a year would be feasible and would meet the over all requirements of all eligible examinees. In actual practice, however, from 1970 onwards, only two examinations were held every year. Rule 11 also envisaged the examination of 200 persons at each of the examinations. In actual practice, however, from 1970 onwards, only two examinations were held every year. Rule 11 also envisaged the examination of 200 persons at each of the examinations. This figure of 200 perhaps was thought of on looking at the capacity of the commission to examine the examinees at a stretch. Rule II read with rule 13 would show that out of the maximum strength of 200 examinees, there would be candidates seeking examination under rule 7 also at their own cost and so it has been provided in rule 13 that the examinees under rule 7 shall not exceed l/3rd of the total number of candidates. Direct recruits also were to be provided for. This would mean that when the rules were framed, it was believed that about 133 seats at each of the two examinations in a year would meet with the requirements of all the employees referred to in rule 4, namely, employees seeking to pass the examination within 3 years and three changes. In actual working, however, it was found that the person seeking the chance out of the employees under rule 4 was far in excess of the expected seats for them. For the first two years. Rules 11 and 13 were not observed. A number of persons took some of their chances in those first two years. The Service Go omission also felt itself helpless in the situation of a gust of employees seeking to clear the examination within three years and three chances. It seems that in the year 1973 the Service Commission put its foot down and insisted on holding the examination only for 200 candidates in strict compliance with rules 11 and 13. It was then that the Government realised that what they had provided for under rule 4 was far less than what was required to cope up with the rush of candidates falling under rule 4. It was only in that year that the Government decided to adopt the test of seniority for the purpose of permitting or allowing the employees to appear in the examination. This being a thing of known notoriety must have come to the notice of a number of employees, who had in the years 1971 and 1972 hastened to appear at the examination? and take their chances. This being a thing of known notoriety must have come to the notice of a number of employees, who had in the years 1971 and 1972 hastened to appear at the examination? and take their chances. The concerned Collector from each of the Districts, therefore, could not be expected to communicate the names and particulars of all eligible persons and direct recruits, but he had to act strictly according to their seniority. We have also noted that certain respondents in these petitions had applied for transmission of their names, but their requests were specifically turned down. Some who could have envisaged the futility of such applications or expressions of their willingness might have abstained from even doing so because of the human temperament not to take exercise in futility. Those who had applied and were specifically rejected would certainly come under the amended rule 4, but the petitioners have come forth with the say that those who had not even expressed their willingness should be deemed to have forfeited the two additional chances that were there for them in the third year of 1973 The question is whether non-expression of one's willingness in the year 1973 was by itself sufficient to make us hold that they had lost the chances. Rule 12(1) in this connection lends us particularly good guidance. Even if a man is approved by the Collector and is called upon to send his application for registering his name as a candidate to the Secretary of the Commission in the form of Appendix-A through the Collector and even if the Collector scrutinises his application and forwards it to the Secretary of the Commission, such a person can be deemed to have failed to appear at the examination only if he actually fails or if he fails to withdraw his candidature before 30 days of the holding of the examination. Under rule 12(1) only those persons can be said to have failed to appear at the examination and thereby lose their chances are those whose names are approved by the Collector and the Government, who have filed the application in the form Appendix A and who have either failed at the examination or failed to withdraw their candidature before 30 days before the commencement of the examination. The rest of the persons cannot be said to have "lost one chance to pass the examination" The phrase "shall he deemed to have lost one chance to pass the examination" occurring in rule 12 (1) and even the Government's power to condone the failure on the part of the examinee to give intimation before 30 days would go to show that, as per the not very-refined scheme of the rules, a candidate can be said to have lost his chance if and only if he has either failed at the examination or he has failed to withdraw his candidature before 30 days of the commencement of the examination. 9. The petitioner, however, contended that it would be impossible for the examinees intending to appear at the examination under rule 4 to know or anticipate the impossibility of their names being included in the list of examinees on account of the embargo of limited numbers. Those, who are actually in service, cannot be assumed to be ignorant of the prevailing relevant positions The benefits that were available to them on passing of the examination and the consequences of non-passing of the examination are sufficiently strong to alert all the prospective candidates. If the argument of the petitioners is to be accepted, it would mean that at every time, when the examinations are to be held, the candidate has to apply to the Collector and if he does not apply, there would not be the question of his being permitted not to appear and consequently he will be deemed to have lost a chance. This is very unreasonable are absurd on the face of it. Those who had not even a ghost of a chance to get such a permission on the ground of the common State-wise seniority may avoid making an application or expressing their willingness and can be said to have not been permitted to appear at the examination. There is no sense in making an infructuous application and inviting a certain and inevitable refusal Those who, therefore, did not apply or could not apply can be said to he persons who are not permitted to appear at the examination in terms of new rule 4(2). Say, for example, on the first three chances after the 1970 rule came into force, an employee does not express his willingness, can it be said that he has lost those chances? Say, for example, on the first three chances after the 1970 rule came into force, an employee does not express his willingness, can it be said that he has lost those chances? It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that a chance can be said to have been lost only if a man fails or only if he does not appear at the examination despite his application having been forwarded and accepted, his seat at the examination being reserved for him, or he does not seek permission, though the time has been ripe to such an extent that his juniors get into the list. 10. Some of the respondents are falling under these categories of persons having not ghost of a chance. As said above, the Government had created mess by permitting all aspirants in the first two years and it is only in the third year that it decided to go strictly according to rule 11 and strictly according to seniority. 11. The above reasoning also gets support from the first proviso appended to the amended rule 4(1) and (2) As per that proviso, failure to apply under clause (I) or (2) for permission to appear at the examination would be deemed to have his permission refused only from the day his junior was granted such permission. To put it differently, it would mean that only those persons will be statutorily deemed to have failed to appear in the examination within the period of three years, whose juniors were granted permission, because they themselves had not sought the same It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that some of the respondents can be said to have been "not permitted" to appear at the examination during the period of three years from the appointed day As per the scheme of the rules, as they were on the amendment of rule 4, the permission could be granted only on the basis of seniority and a man can be said to have been given permission and can be said to have availed of it only from the time his junior is granted permission. Till then he is to be deemed to be "not permitted " 12. The difficulty, however, has been created because of the loose expression employed in rule 4 before amendment and after amendment. Till then he is to be deemed to be "not permitted " 12. The difficulty, however, has been created because of the loose expression employed in rule 4 before amendment and after amendment. The verb that was used in the third proviso to old rule 4 and that has been used in the amended rule 4 (2) is "was not permitted". It was argued with some plausibility that the verb "not permitted" would ordinarily lead an employee to seek a permission and its rejection. However, going through the entire scheme in the light of rules 11, 12 and 13 and the circumstances which prompted the Government to amend rule 4, it is reasonably clear that what was Intended to be conveyed by the verb 'was not permitted'' was to cover the cases of those who in the light of the then existing circumstances could not be permitted. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State very elaborately makes the position clear. A peculiar situation had arisen in the year 1973. Some respondents, who were overcautious enough to apply in the year 1973 courted refusal and it could not be controverted that their cases would be squarely covered by amended rule 4 (2). However, there were persons who could not have been permitted and their formal expression of the desire to appear at the examination was bound to court failure because of a very limited number of seats being available to fresh expectant has distinguished from aspirants under rule 7 of the Rules). Such persons also were intended to be covered under the verb "was not permitted". 13. It is in this light that the Government has treated the rest of the respondents as persons constituting a different class of Government servants, who have yet got the chances of appearing under rule 4 of the amended rules. They do not stand on par with the petitioners who admittedly had taken three chances of appearing, but had tactual) failed at the examinations. Only course left open for them is rule 7. 14. One more facet of the argument in favour of the interpretation which we hate placed could also be had from the reading of rules 11 and 12. The Collector has to send from time to time the names of willing candidates. He has to send the names to the Government. Only course left open for them is rule 7. 14. One more facet of the argument in favour of the interpretation which we hate placed could also be had from the reading of rules 11 and 12. The Collector has to send from time to time the names of willing candidates. He has to send the names to the Government. All that an intending candidate has to do is to express his willingness before the Collector, but the Collector, who knows that only 133 seats could be had for the whole of the State, the numbers he would recommend would be for less. The candidate is not required to apply to the Collector. It is not, as held by the learned Single Judge, we say so with respect, that the moment a candidate failed to express his willingness, a chance was lost for him, one out of six chances. Even if the willingness is expressed, the Collector may not send the name looking to the enormity of rush and this is what actually had happened. The overall genesis of the Rules is that whatsoever does not avail himself of a ready possibility of appearing at the examination, alone shall be deemed to have lost an opportunity or a chance. The Government's position has been made very clear by the Deputy Secretary, who has depicted the confusion that was prevalent in the year 1973. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the word "not permitted" occurring in rule 4 as amended should be clear under rule 11. It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that loss of a chance in terms of rule 5 can and must be confined to cases of actual failures or of persons who did not seek permission even at the time when their juniors were given permission and not to other persons. 15. The whole rule 4 was amended only with a view to give relief to such persons whose chances were not there to appear at the examination. The respondents certainly would fall under this category. In this view of the matter, all three original petitions were liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. 16. The result is that the four letter patent appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the original Special Civil Applications stand dismissed. The respondents certainly would fall under this category. In this view of the matter, all three original petitions were liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. 16. The result is that the four letter patent appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the original Special Civil Applications stand dismissed. The Special Civil Application No. 1681 of 1977 is also dismissed. In view of the circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs throughout. After the above order was pronounced, Mrs. Mehta applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and also for stay of the operation of the order and for consequential continuation of the interim relief granted. Mr. G. T. Nanavati opposes the prayer for stay. Leave is refused, as in our opinion, here the question is not of such general public importance and such as requires to be decided by the Supreme Court. Prayer for interim relief is also refused. Appeal allowed.