JUDGMENT K.K. Narendran, J. 1. A nice question in service law arises in this case. The question relates to super-session of seniors by juniors for want of test qualification. The petitioners and respondents 3 to 44 belong to the Kerala Treasury Subordinate Service and are governed by the Kerala Treasury Subordinate Service Rules. They were originally appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the Land Revenue Department of the erstwhile State of Travancore - Cochin. It was when the Treasury Department was formed that they opted for the Treasury Subordinate Service. All the petitioners acquired the requisite test qualifications including Account Test (Higher) long before respondents 3 to 44 acquired the above qualifications. By virtue of this, they got promotion from the post of Junior Accountant to that of Senior Accountant then from the post of Senior Accountant and to that of Section Head / Head Accountant superseding their seniors, including respondents 3 to 44. When the petitioners were holding the post of Section Head / Head Accountant, they were promoted to the post of Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II / Junior Superintendent by virtue of their seniority in the feeder category. As respondents 3 to 44 were yet to pass Account Test (Higher) and get promotion as Section Head / Head Accountant, there was no super-session when the petitioners got promotion as Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II / Junior Superintendent. Later, several among respondents 3 to 44 passed Account Test (Higher) and got promotion as Section Head / Head Accountant. By this, they also became eligible for restoration of their seniority in the cadre of Section Head / Head Accountant over earlier promoted juniors who continued to be in that cadre then. 2. In 1976, the Treasury Department published a provisional seniority list of Junior Superintendents in the Travancore Cochin area as on 1st February 1972 and invited objections. In the above list, the names of many of the petitioners were not there and some of the respondents were shown as seniors to the petitioners who were included. Thereafter, on 28th February 1977 the 2nd respondent Director of Treasuries, Trivandrum published a supplementary provisional seniority list, of Officiating Junior Superintendents of Travancore - Cochin area. In the above list Ext. P1 list, the names of all the respondents, 3 to 44, were included as seniors (to the petitioners. Thereafter, on 28th February 1977 the 2nd respondent Director of Treasuries, Trivandrum published a supplementary provisional seniority list, of Officiating Junior Superintendents of Travancore - Cochin area. In the above list Ext. P1 list, the names of all the respondents, 3 to 44, were included as seniors (to the petitioners. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that respondents 3 to 44 were given seniority over the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Superintendents by applying the Government Order R. Dis. 8207/50/CS, dated 7th May 1951. The petitioners immediately made written representations to the 2nd respondent pointing out that the petitioners were not promoted as Junior Superintendents by superseding any of their unqualified seniors and hence the rule of restoration of seniority cannot be applied to deny the petitioners the promotion they got by virtue of their seniority in the feeder category. The 2nd petitioner alone got a reply from the 2nd respondent rejecting his representation. 3. As the 2nd respondent did not take any steps to review the provisional seniority list, the petitioners made written representations to the 1st respondent State. Ext. P2 is the representation made by the 3rd petitioner and Ext. P3 is the representation made by the 6th petitioner. In spite of the above representations, on the basis of the provisional seniority list of Junior Superintendents provisionally promotions were given to some of the respondents to the next higher cadre of Sub Treasury Officer, Grade I / Senior Superintendent / Stamp Depot Officer, etc. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioners approached this Court with this Original Petition. The petitioners have prayed for a declaration that respondents 3 to 44 are not entitled to the restoration of seniority over the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Superintendent / Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II by the application of the principles laid down in the G.O., dated 7th May 1951. The petitioners also have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to assign to the petitioners as well as respondents 3 to 44 seniority and ranking in the cadre of Junior Superintendent / Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II on the basis of their respective dates of actual promotion in the said cadre. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent State. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent State. In the counter affidavit it is stated: As per the provisos under R.27(a) and (b) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, respondents 3 to 44 are entitled to the benefit of restoration of rank contemplated by the Government Order, dated 7th May 1951 as clarified by Government Order, dated 4th January 1954. For the period upto 12th December 1972 promotions to the cadre of Junior Superintendent from the cadre of Section Head / Head Accountant were made on the basis of seniority alone. Since the Special Rules for the Department issued on 12th December 1972 insisted completion of probation in the cadre of Section Head / Head Accountant for promotion as Junior Superintendent, only persons who have completed probation in the cadre of Section Head / Head Accountant were being promoted as Junior Superintendent. On 21st December 1974 the Government amended the Special Rules and thereafter probation in the cadre of Section Head / Head Accountant was not insisted for promotion as Junior Superintendent. The petitioners got promotion as Section Head / Head Accountant and then as Junior Superintendent / Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II, while some of the respondents and some others who were senior to them in the cadre of Senior Accountant were continuing as Senior Accountants for want of Account Test (Higher) qualification. Such seniors who got promotion as Section Head / Head Accountant and then as Junior Superintendent after acquisition of test qualification, are eligible for rank restoration above such of their juniors who have superseded them in the cadre of Section Head / Head Accountant as well as Junior Superintendent. This is permissible as per the clarification in para 2 of the Government Order, dated 4th January 1954. 5. The question that arises for consideration is: The petitioners superseded their seniors respondents 3 to 44 for promotion as Section Head / Head Accountant. Before the superseded seniors could acquire the test qualification and get promotion as Section Head / Head Accountant, the petitioners got a further promotion as Junior Superintendent / Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II. For the latter promotion no additional test qualification was necessary. Before the superseded seniors could acquire the test qualification and get promotion as Section Head / Head Accountant, the petitioners got a further promotion as Junior Superintendent / Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II. For the latter promotion no additional test qualification was necessary. Not only that, no question of super-session of any of the seniors also arose because they had not by that time acquired the test qualification and got promotion as Section Head / Head Accountant. In the above circumstances, can the seniors superseded for promotion to the post of Section Head / Head Accountant be restored seniority in the cadre of Junior Superintendent / Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II invoking the 'Rules' in the Government Order R. Dis. 8207/50/CS, dated 7th May 1951 as clarified by Order S6-14870/52/CS, dated 4th January 1954. 6. R.3 of the Government Order, dated 7th May 1951 reads: "3. In cases where a senior is passed over for want of the test qualification and a junior with such qualification is promoted, the junior will not be liable for reversion to give place or post senior so long as there is a vacancy in the higher grade or post against which the junior can continue without break. But if the junior reverts for want of vacancy in the higher grade or post, and if by the time another vacancy in the higher grade or post arises and the senior acquires the test qualification, the senior with the test qualification should be preferred for promotion." Government Order S6-14870/52/CS., dated 4th January 1954 reads: "In the Government Proceedings read above, it has been ordered that 'wherever it is laid down that a person should pass a test or tests to qualify himself for a higher grade or post, preference should be given to those who have passed the test or tests in making promotion to that higher grade or post whether in an officiating capacity or substantive capacity...... In the application of these rules certain doubts have been raised for clarification and they are: (a) ................................ (b) Suppose A, B and C are clerks on Rs. 30-45 in the order of seniority and C, who is the juniormost is promoted to the grade of Rs. 45-75 by virtue of his test qualification. The question has been raised as to who should be promoted to a vacancy which arises subsequently on Rs. (b) Suppose A, B and C are clerks on Rs. 30-45 in the order of seniority and C, who is the juniormost is promoted to the grade of Rs. 45-75 by virtue of his test qualification. The question has been raised as to who should be promoted to a vacancy which arises subsequently on Rs. 80-120 if by that time both A and B have become qualified in tests. (c) ................................. (2) Government have examined carefully the various points raised and are pleased to issue the following clarifications: (i) .................................. (ii) In the illustration given under (b) above, the senior most hand, A, who is qualified on the date of concurrence of the vacancy on Rs. 80-120 should be promoted to the grade of Rs. 80-120, though it may apparently be a double promotion to him, which should be deemed to have been caused by the special circumstances of the case. (iii) ................................ (3) .................................. (4) .................................. (5) .................................." The point raised in para 1 (b) and the clarification given in para 2 (ii) gives a clear indication. The indication is that if the senior superseded for want of test qualification gets test qualified before a vacancy in the cadre above the one to which the junior was promoted superseding him, the senior who has become test qualified has to be promoted to that cadre in preference to the junior who superseded the senior. So, in a case when such a vacancy arose, the senior was still not test qualified, not only that the senior cannot be promoted straightaway to that higher cadre but he cannot, after he gets a promotion getting test qualified later, have preference over the junior in that higher cadre. This is because, as per the clarification, dated 4th January 1954 the senior gets preference over the junior only if the senior was test qualified when the vacancy arose in the cadre next higher to the one in which the junior was working as a result of the promotion he got superseding the senior who could not get the promotion for want of test qualification. If this principle is applied here, as the petitioners got the further promotion as Junior Superintendent / Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II, before respondents 3 to 44 became test qualified and got promotion to the cadre of Section Head / Head Accountant, respondents 3 to 44 cannot get a restoration of their seniority over the petitioners in the higher cadre of Junior Superintendent / Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II. So, the Government Order, dated 7th May 1951 as clarified by Government Order, dated 4th January 1954 cannot in any way help respondents 3 to 44 to regain their seniority over the petitioners. In that case, it goes without saying that respondents 3 to 44 cannot be promoted as Sub Treasury Officer, Grade I / Senior Superintendent / Stamp Depot Officer etc., before the petitioners are given promotion. 7. In the result, the petitioners are given a declaration that respondents 3 to 44 are not entitled to restoration of seniority over the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Superintendent / Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II. The petitioners and respondents 3 to 44 are to be assigned seniority in the cadre of Junior Superintendent / Sub Treasury Officer, Grade II on the basis of their respective dates of actual promotion to that cadre. The Original Petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs.