M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE above writ petitions raise common questions of law and therefore they are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were all employees in the State Accounts Department either as allottees within the meaning of that term under the 'states Reorganisation act' or have been recruiied subsequently to the service under the State. They joined service as second Division Clerks and all the petitioners have been promoted to the cadre of 'first Division Clerks and thereafter to the higher Cadre of superintendents subsequent to 1-11-1956 On the relevant date of their promotions it was necessary that they should pass the State Accounts service Examinations (all parts) which had been prescribed under the mysore State Accounts Cadre and recruitment Rules promulgated on 26-5-1959. It is relevant to state that all the petitioners on the date of the petition were holding the posts of superintendents in the Department of state Accounts. ( 3 ) THE petitioners have sought for a direction or a writ of mandamus to the respondent-State of Karnataka to review the promotions strictly in accordance with the Karnataka Civil services (Service and Kannada Language examinations) Rules, 1974. However, when similar petitions were disposed, of by this court, the 1st respondent-State passed the Karnataka Service examinations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act ). By virtue of the provisions contained in Sec. 3 of the 1976 Act, a fiction was created to the effect that there were no Examinations whatsoever prescribed for the period between 1-11-1956 and 9-1-1974 for the purpose of creating eligibility for promotion or as a condition precedent for promotion. Sec. 5 of the 1976 Act also provides for the Government to undertake review of all promotions made from 1-11-1956 upto 9th January 1974 in the light of the fiction created under S. 3 of that Act. ( 4 ) SOME of the employees of the state who were situated in the same position as the petitioners had presented other writ petitions which came to be reierred to a Division Bench along with Writ Petition No. 3038 of 1975. (1) When this matter came up for disposal before the Division Bench, the division Bench, referred to the provisions of the 1976 Act without going into the merits of the contentions raised. T was a party to that decision. (1) When this matter came up for disposal before the Division Bench, the division Bench, referred to the provisions of the 1976 Act without going into the merits of the contentions raised. T was a party to that decision. ( 5 ) IN the normal course of events following the decision in the case of d. Y. Nadagowda v. State of Mysore. I should have disposed of all these petitioners in the same manner. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, Shri H. B. Datar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has pointed out that further clarification is necessary and this court mist issue appropriate directions to the respondent-State to properly carry out the mandate contained in the 1976 Act. In substance his argument is that while promotions are to be reviewed for the period between 1-11-1956 and 9-4-1974, as if there was no prescription of anv Departmental examination or test for purpose of obtaining promotion, it does not absolve such promotees from passing the examination prescribed for the posts to which they are promoted, in accordance with Sec. 4 of the 1976 Act, which enjoins that on or from 10-11-1974 service Examination shall be the same as those prescribed under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the Karnataka Civil services (Service and Kannada language Examinations) Rules, 1974. However. Mr. Datar has drawn my attention to the special provision provided for in sub-sec, (b) of Sec. 4 of the 1976 Act which is as follows: "every Government servant, including a Government servant promoted under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 shall be required to pass the service nominations as provided and for the purposes specified therein. Failure to pass shall entail the consequences specified in the said Rules. " from the above sub-section of the 1976 act, it is abundantly clear that though the persons who had not passed the examination prior to 9-1-1974 are entitled for promotions under Sec. 3 (2) of the 1976 Act as if there was no examination prescribed for promotion, they shall nevertheless be required to pass the Service Examination provided for in the 1974 Rules referred to in that sub-section. In other words in accordance with Rule 3 (2) and rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) rules 1974, the prescribed examination is for holding the post. The said rules read as follows:"3. Obligation of Government Servants to pass certain Examinations. In other words in accordance with Rule 3 (2) and rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) rules 1974, the prescribed examination is for holding the post. The said rules read as follows:"3. Obligation of Government Servants to pass certain Examinations. (1) Save as otherwise provided in the rules, every Government Servant shall within the period prescribed in sub-rule (2) pass.- (1) the Kannada Language Examination, and (ii) the prescribed Examination, if any, in respect of the post held by him (2) (a) A Government servant,- (i) in service on the date of commencement of the rules shall pass the said Examinations within the period of two years from the said date; 4 (1) Restriction on promotions and appointments by transfers.- After the expiry of a period of two years from the date of commencement of these rules or from the date of prescription of the service examinations, whichever is later, no Government servant shall be eligible, (i) for promotion to any higher post, unless he has passed the Kannada Language examination and the prescribed examinations if any, for the "holder of such higher post and the post already held by him. Provided that this clause shall not be applicable in respect of the first stage promotion to the higher post on or after 1st November, 1956, of a Government servant who has been allotted or deemed to have been allotted to serve in connection with, the affairs of the State of Karnataka under Section 115 of the States Reorganisation act, 1956. (ii) for appointment by transfer to any post unless he has passed the kannada Language Examination and the prescribed Examinations if any, for the holder of such post. (2) sub-rule (1) shall not have effect- (a) for a period of one year from the first day of May 1976 in respect of holders of posts for whom service examinations were prescribed on 10th January, 1974; and (b) for a period of one year, from the date of expiry of two years from the late of such prescription in respect of holders of posts for whom the service examinations have been prescribed after 10th January, 1974. "from the above Rules it is clear that the proscription of the Examination with effect from 10-1-1974 is for the post held by the concerned Government servant and not merely relatable to the promotions for which he is entitled to be considered. If it is so understood then it becomes clear that in order to carry out the mandate of the 1976 Act, the Government is required to do the following: (i) Review all promotions made in the Department of State Accounts concerning First Division Clerks, second Division Clerks and Superintendents from 1-11-1956 to 9-1-1974 allocating proper places on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit and eligibility irrespective of the fact whether the concerned employee of the State Accounts Department had passed the Departmental Examination provided for such promotion in the relevant Cadre and Recruitment rules. (ii) Thereafter take up further review of the promotions so made in (i) above to test whether such persons holding the relevant posts have passed the prescribed Examinations within the period allowed. This period has to be reckoned from 10-1-1974. In the 1974 rules two years were prescribed. This would have resulted in the period allowed coming to an end on the expiry of 9-1-1976. However, by an amendment to Rule 4 of the 1974 rules brought about by the notification gsr 131 dated 1-7-1976 the period was extended with effect from 1st May 1976 for a further period, of one year. Thus the last date provided in the total period prescribed for pasping the prescribed Examinations would be 30th April, 1977. ( 7 ) IT is made clear that the prescribed examinations would be those provided for in Rule 2 (4) and 3 (1) (i) (ii) and no other as the 1974 Rules are prospective in their operation. ( 8 ) IT is Mr. Datar's contention that having regard to the plain language of sub-sec. (b) of Sec. 4 of the 1976 act, it should necessarily be done, otherwise the entire scheme of the 1974 examination Rules and the 1976 Act would be rendered futile. There is some force in this contention for the reasons already stated. In the review made under (ii) above, if it is found that some persons holding particular posts have not passed the prescribed service examinations under the 1971 rules, then such persons are bound to face the consequences of reversion provided for in those Rules. There is some force in this contention for the reasons already stated. In the review made under (ii) above, if it is found that some persons holding particular posts have not passed the prescribed service examinations under the 1971 rules, then such persons are bound to face the consequences of reversion provided for in those Rules. Therefore, a third review becomes necessary to obtain a final decision as to who is entitled to hold a particular post in, the relevant cadre having regard to his position as on 10-1-1974 and on 30-4-1977. Therefore, in the light of the observations made, the State is directed to make the review accordingly. ( 9 ) THIS Judgment should not be construed as being in disagreement with the Rivision Bench Rulling of this court in Writ Petition No. 3038 of 1975 and connected matters but only as supplementary and by way of clarification. This order is made after hearing the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent. Stale in all these portions. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .