JUDGMENT 1. - An employee of Rajasthan High Court aggrieved by the decision on the administrative side has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer : "By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No. 2 may be directed to declare the result of the test held in September, 1977. On the petitioner being found to have passed the test, accord him promotion from a date persons junior to him have been promoted on the post of Stamp Reporter/Court-fee Examiner. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from holding any test in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24-10-1978. In case any such test is held during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may be declared illegal and be quashed. Any appointment made in pursuance of such test may also be declared illegal and be quashed. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case be issued; Costs of the writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner." The petitioner is a substantive Upper Division Clerk and according to him, he fulfils the requisite qualification for promotion as Stamp-Reporter/Court Fee Examiner. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 issued an advertisement on 20th August, 1977 for holding test for filling up the posts of Stamp Reporter/Court Fees Examiner out of Upper Division Clerks and it was mentioned that the preference will be given to Law Graduate. The petitioner claims to be an Upper Division Clerk, as well as Law Graduate. 3. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court vide an office order No. Estt; HC/76/52 dated the 18th February, 1976 has laid down the method of recruitment and qualification for appointment to various posts including Stamp Reporter and Court fee Examiner etc. Clauses l & 3 of the above order are relevant for the purpose of this writ petition and they are as under : 1. Clauses l & 3 of the above order are relevant for the purpose of this writ petition and they are as under : 1. LOWER DIVISION CLERKS : Recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Clerk shall be made by direct recruitments:- (a) Minimum qualification : Higher Secondary (b) The candidate should have attained the age of 18 years and should not have attained the age of 28 years on the 1st day of January of the year following the date of application: Provided that the upper age limit may be relaxed by five years in the case of members of scheduled caste and scheduled Tribes. (c) A competitive examination shall be held to test the ability of the candidates in the following subjects : Section : A, (1) English, 100 Marks. (ii) Hindi, 100 Marks. (Time : Two hours for each paper) Section : B, Typewriting :, (i) Hindi or, (ii) English (Time Ten minutes), 50 Marks The standard and scope of the papers shall be as follows: (1) English:- The paper shall be set to test the candidates' proficiency in the language besides an essay to be written in English. It shall include translation from Hindi to English and English into Hindi, precise writing, use of idioms etc. and dictation. The standard of the paper shall be that of High Secondary Examination. Grace marks upto a maxium of 5 shall be given for good handwriting and deductions upto five marks shall be made for bad handwriting. (2) Hindi:- The paper shall be set to test the candidates proficiency in the language. Besides an essay to be written on one of the serveral specified subjects, it shall include precise writing, letter writing, use of idioms etc. and dictation. Grace marks upto maximum of five shall be given for good handwriting and deduction upto five marks shall be made for bad handwriting; (3) Typewriting:-Speed in English Typewriting 30 words per minute, Speed in Hindi Type writing-25 words per minute. The speed in typing shall be calculated on the basis of the standard method, i.e. the stroke method of counting words. One stroke will he counted. The speed in typing shall be calculated on the basis of the standard method, i.e. the stroke method of counting words. One stroke will he counted. (i) for space left after comma, semi colon, colon, a full stop, a sign of interrogation or a sign of exclamation; (ii) for space left between two words; (iii) while starting a new paragraph; (iv) for changing over from one line of typing to another; (v) for typing a capital letter or any other character like single or double inverted commas (unless the shift key is locked for typing continuous capital letters; characters in which case two strokes will be counted both at the time of locking and unlocking the shift key). The total number of strokes typed during ten minutes period will be divided by 5 to get gross words typed by the candidate. Two words per full mistake and word per half mistake will he deducted from the total words typed by the candidate. This divided by the number of minutes the candidate took to type them will give the speed per minute. The following mistakes will be counted as full mistakes : (a) the omission of a word of figure, if not corrected by insertion, (b) the substitution of a wrong word or figure, (c) misspelling of a word, and (d) improper line spacing e.g. not uniform throughout. The following will be counted as partial mistakes : (a) an error or omission in punctuation, (b) irregular spacing or wrong division of a word at the end of line, or no space between words, (c) wrong use of capital or small letters, (d) not unifrom identation of paragraphs, (e) faculty shifting of shift key, (f) overstriking or overprinting, striking, one letter over another. Where two or more mistakes are committed in typing of one word, it is to be counted as only one full or half mistake as the case may be. Those candidates who pass in the written test only shall be eligible for appearing in the typewriting test. The candidates shall be asked to bring their own typewriters. 3. Where two or more mistakes are committed in typing of one word, it is to be counted as only one full or half mistake as the case may be. Those candidates who pass in the written test only shall be eligible for appearing in the typewriting test. The candidates shall be asked to bring their own typewriters. 3. STAMP REPORTERS AND COURT FEE EXAMINERS : Recruitment to the posts of Stamp Reporters and Court fee examiners shall be made by promotion from amongst the Upper Division Clerks after holding a test in the following subjects : (1) Rajasthan High Court Rules, Chapters 4(Affidavits) 5(Jurisdiction of Judges sitting alone or in Division Bench,) 9 (appeals and applications) 10 (Appeal or application by or against legal representatives) 11 (Presentation of appeals and application) 18 (Proceedings other than original trials), 21, (Habeas Corpus), 22 Directions, orders or writs under Article 226 of the Constitution) and 23 (appeals to the Supreme Court of India). (2) Limitation Act, and (3) Rajasthan Court fees, suits Valuation Act. Preference may be given to Law Graduates. 4. From the above, petitioner's case is that so far as promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter and Court Fees Examiner is concerned, promotions were to be given among Upper Division Clerks after holding 'a test' in contradistinction to the appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk which is to be made on the basis of 'competitive test'. 5. Notification issued by the High Court on August 20, 1977 contemplates a test but while issuing the test papers, the Registrar and Deputy Registrar clarified it by the phrase, 'competitive'. Petitioner's case is that the Deputy and Registrar Registrar were not competent to add this clarification to the test and convert it to a 'competitive' test whereas it was only made for being a 'qualifying test'. In this connection, my attention was invited to the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Services of Staff) Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1953), in which the following provision was made for promotions : "Subject to the requirements of efficiency promotions shall ordinarilly be made according to the seniority and official may receive special promotion for recognised merit irrespective of the grade to which he may belong or his seniority within the grade. Promotion to the following posts of responsibility or trust for which is required special qualification shall be made by selection irrespective of seniority. 1. Steno to C.J. Grade I 2. Office Superintendent 3. Head Translator 4. Chief Accountant 5. Senior Reader (Reader to Hon. C.J.) 6. Stamp Reporter 7. Stenographers for Hon'ble Judge II 8. Translator 9. Stenographers for Hon'ble Judges and Stenographer to Registrar 10. Bench Reader. Stamp Reporter was included at serial no. 6. This was amended in the year 1975 and Stamp Reporter was excluded from it by the Amendment Rules of 1975 on 26th September, 1975. 6. It may be mentioned that Rules, 1953 lay down that under clause 8 which is meant for promotions, the promotions shall ordinarily be made according to seniority but subject to the requirement of the efficiency. An exception has provided that an official may receive special promotion for recognised merit irrespective of the grade to which he may belong, or of his seniority within the grade. 7. Obviously, the post of Stamp Reporter,Court Fees Examiner is a post of promotion and the petitioner's case is that the instructions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the actions of the officers all are to be regulated by embargo or supervising the provision of clause 8 which makes it clear that subject to the requirement of efficiency, the promotion shall ordinarily be made according to seniority. 8. It is in the above context that the petitioner claims that the test which has been described as 'a test' should be treated as qualifying test only and the promotion should be made by seniority provided one passes qualifying test. The petitioner claims that he passed the qualifying test and, therefore, he was entitled to promotions. 9. While developing his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the year 1976 one Shri Ashutosh obtained lesser marks as he obtained only 34 marks and another person obtained 67 marks, but Shri Ashutosh was promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter vide order dated 8th September, 1976 and the more meritorious person was promoted to the post of Court Fees Examiner only. It was mentioned that first preference was given to Shri Ashutosh on a permanent post of Stamp Reporter even though he secured only 34 marks and the employee who secured 67 marks was promoted on temporary post of Court Fees Examiner thereafter. It was mentioned that first preference was given to Shri Ashutosh on a permanent post of Stamp Reporter even though he secured only 34 marks and the employee who secured 67 marks was promoted on temporary post of Court Fees Examiner thereafter. It was argued that as a result of this, later on, Shri Ashutosh was promoted to the post of Bench Reader on September 12, 1977 and the person more meritorious to him was promoted to the post of Bench Reader on 26th May, 1978. This was so done in the name that Ashutosh was senior and the test was only qualifying test and not a competitive test. The petitioner submits that he was appointed on 7th October. 1958 and he is senior to respondent No. 3 who was appointed on 18th June, 1960, respondent No. 4 who was appointed on 20th December, 1958, respondent No. 5 who was appointed on 3rd August, 1959, respondent 6 appointed on 13th February, 1960 and respondent No. 7 on 9th October, 1958. Petitioner's claim is that he is senior to all these respondents in L.D.C. and U.D.C., both scale, and yet whereas respondents have been promoted as Stamp Reporter and Bench Readers, he has been deprived of this legal right. 10. It was then argued that the respondent No. 6, Parasuram Dangi voluntarily got himself transferred as LDC in High Court on 13th February 1960 after two years appointment of the petitioner and, that he has not even passed the prescribed Competitive test for L.D.Cs. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 gamely, Ghanshyam Das V.R., and Parsuram Dangi, were promoted on the basis of reservations to the S.C. & S.T. even though no reservation was made for the S.C. candidates in the notification. Both, Sarva Shri Ghanshyam Das V.R., and Parsuram Dangi have been promoted out of turn. It was then argued that so far as Scheduled Caste is concerned, the total number of vacancies fallen vacant during particular year have to be considered according to roster system. The quota for Scheduled Caste is 17% and for Scheduled Tribes is 11%. But during the year only where there is one vacancy of a particular post, no reservation of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is permissible and the vacancy has to be filled in, in accordance with normal zone of consideration. It was argued that the respondent Nos. The quota for Scheduled Caste is 17% and for Scheduled Tribes is 11%. But during the year only where there is one vacancy of a particular post, no reservation of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is permissible and the vacancy has to be filled in, in accordance with normal zone of consideration. It was argued that the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 were given 50% benefit in their promotion on the post of Stamp Reporter and Bench Reader. Respondent No. 5 was given cent percent benefit of Scheduled Caste at the time of promotion as Senior Bench Reader and the post of Senior Bench Reader is only one in High Court and also on the post of Superintendent. It was argued that the promotion of respondents No. 3, 4 and 7 were made in violation of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953, because seniority has not been considered and only they have been promoted according to merit. 11. The submission of the petitioner is that Rule 8 in terms provides that promotion would be according to seniority, of course, subject to the requirement of efficiency. Once the petitioner or any one passes the qualifying test - 'a test', he becomes qualified and he should be treated as efficient enough to be promoted and then seniority and seniority alone should be considered. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (1) State of Kerala and another v. N.M. Thomes, AIR 1976 SC 490 , in which relevant observations are made in para 38 which reads as under : "With regard to promotion, the normal principles are either merit-cum-seniority or seniority-cum-merit. Seniority-cum-merit means that giving the necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the Senior though the less meritorious shall have priority." Reliance was also placed on the decision of Mysore High Court in (2) N. Srinath M.A. Somashekar Asst. Director Industries v. State of Mysore and others, 1972 SLR (7) 449, wherein it was observed as under : "Whether the promotion be on seniority-cum-merit basis or by selection, it is impossible to promote a junior without considering the case of a seniority. Director Industries v. State of Mysore and others, 1972 SLR (7) 449, wherein it was observed as under : "Whether the promotion be on seniority-cum-merit basis or by selection, it is impossible to promote a junior without considering the case of a seniority. In the case of the first type of promotions, it is obvious that a senior must he considered first and that when he is found unfit, the case of the next junior may be considered. In the second category of promotions the Promoting Authority must consider a sufficient number of persons in the lower cadre or a number which, a relation to promotional vacancies to be filled, is reasonably sufficient, at the top of the lower cadre for consideration. They should take the number from persons at the top, because both according to well-known notion of merit in Government service and according to the express provisions of Rule 4 of the Mysore Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, seniority is an element in the assessment of merit and even in cases where promotion is by selection, due regard must be had for SENIORITY also." (para 13). Shri Singhvi also relied upon the decision of Kerala High Court in (3) Punnose v. Manager P. & T. 1977 (2) SLR 399, wherein it was also observed as under: "Seniority-cum-fitness will not mean selection made on merit and ability. There is no question of any comparative assessment as such coming in. In such cases no doubt the suitability or fitness of the person concerned for promotion to the post, his qualification, health etc., might be relevant will have to be considered." (para 5) 13. On the above premises, it was argued that the list of candidates who has passed the test held on 25th September, 1977 should not be treated as merit list and the result should be treated only as 'a result of qualifying examination', and then the petitioner should be promoted, once he is declared qualified because he is senior most. The empasis was laid on Rule 8 and it was argued that all administrative instructions if they are against it, should be treated as void. 14. Reference was also made to the reply of the respondent alongwith affidavit dated the 2nd March, 1979 wherein it has been pleaded that the criteria has been seniority-cum-merit. The promotion of the respondent Nos. The empasis was laid on Rule 8 and it was argued that all administrative instructions if they are against it, should be treated as void. 14. Reference was also made to the reply of the respondent alongwith affidavit dated the 2nd March, 1979 wherein it has been pleaded that the criteria has been seniority-cum-merit. The promotion of the respondent Nos. 3, 4, & 7 has been made during the pendency of the writ and the respondent No. 5 has been promoted as Senior Bench Reader and then as Superintendent. 15. Another limb of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no provision under Rules to prepare panel and in the notification dated the 20th August, 1977 no provision for panel was shown and it was declared latter on that the panel of the successful candidates will remain alive for period of one year. Without absorbing all the successful candidates in the year 1977. the next test was held on 24th December. 1978 and in this test, panel was shown to be alive for a period of one year and this period was extended from time to time and upto 31st March, 1982 and all the successful candidates have been absorbed except the petitioner. 16. On the above bedrock, the petitioner prays that he may be given relief prayed for in the writ petition. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed a joint reply and their case is that no results are to be declared of the test which is departmental examination to find out merit of the applicants. According to this reply, persons who were promoted according to the merit list prepared on 2-10-77 of test held on 25th September, 1977 and the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 were promoted as member of the Scheduled Castes irrespective of seniority list. 17. Reference was made to Rule 2A(2) and 2B of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953, which empowers the Chief Justice to specify the method of recruitment to a post or category of post and specified the manner in which such recruitment shall be made and lay down the qualification by general or special order. 17. Reference was made to Rule 2A(2) and 2B of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953, which empowers the Chief Justice to specify the method of recruitment to a post or category of post and specified the manner in which such recruitment shall be made and lay down the qualification by general or special order. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that on 18th February, 1976, the High Court specified the method of recruitment and qualifications and according to this, recruitment to the post of Stamp Reporter Court Fee Examiner and Translator are to be made from amongst U.D.Cs., by promotion holding 'a test' on the basis of merit. 18. It was argued on the above bedrock of facts that it is the merit and not seniority which is material for the post of Stamp-Reporter, Court Fee Examiner. It was pointed out that the petitioner has got no merit in the result of the test held and he cannot claim any prayer or any relief. In the additional pleas it has been contended that promotions to the higher post are made after examining the merits as well as service record of the eligible candidates. It was asserted that the seniority is not criteria and the merit is criteria for the promotion to the post. The result theets and mark sheet were submitted with the affidavit according to which the petitioner Jagjiwan Chand secured 44 marks and he is at no. 9 in the comparative mark list and all other respondents except the respondents-belonging to Scheduled Caste Shri Ghanshyam Das who obtained 36 marks and Parsuram Dangi who obtained 35 marks are below to hint got more marks. Another affidavit of Shri Ganesh Chandra Saxena, Additional Registrar has been filed in which it has been mentioned that it was decided by the Departmental Promotion Committee to maintain panel of the successful candidates and keep it alive for one year upto 2nd October, 1978. 19. The petitioner moved an application on 28th March, 1979 in which it was mentioned that original record of the committee referred to in affidavit dated 22nd March, 1979 and also orderes by which Shri Ashutosh who was promoted inspite of obtaining only 34 marks as against 67 marks obtained by other employee, should be got produced. 19. The petitioner moved an application on 28th March, 1979 in which it was mentioned that original record of the committee referred to in affidavit dated 22nd March, 1979 and also orderes by which Shri Ashutosh who was promoted inspite of obtaining only 34 marks as against 67 marks obtained by other employee, should be got produced. An order was given to produce this record and this order was repeated on 21st July, 1982, that copies of the document as ordered on 27th April, 1971 should be submitted by the respondent alongwith his written arguments within two weeks. It is to be noted that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have not submitted the copies of the documents and the only inference which can be drawn is that earlier the High Court used to promote Stamp Reporter-Court Fee Examiner on the basis of the seniority provided qualifying test is passed. appears to be correct. The example given by the petitioner is that Shri Ashutosh got 34 marks in comparision to other employee, who obtained 67 marks and yet Ashutosh was promoted in preference to other employee, appears to be correct. It will have to be seen as to what should be its effect at some later stage of this judgement. 20. The question which now comes for precise consideration is whether the phrase, 'a test' used in the notification means, 'qualifying test' or 'competitive test'. 21. Undoubtedly, the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar has got no authority to convert it into a 'competitive test' if according to rules. it was designed to be a 'qualifying test' only and vice-versa So far as notification dated the 18th February, 1976 is concerned, it uses the word. 'a test' only and neither 'qualifying test' has been mentioned here nor 'competitive test' has been mentioned. Clause 3 of this notification expressly mentions that the recruitment to the post of Stamp-Reporter/Court Fees Examiner shall be made by promotion from amongst Upper Division Clerks. It then says that this should be done after holding 'a test' in the subjects as reproduced aforesaid In the last, it has been mentioned that the preference should be given to Law Graduates. These rules have been made in pursuance of provisions of Rules 2A and 2B of the Rules of 1953. 22. It then says that this should be done after holding 'a test' in the subjects as reproduced aforesaid In the last, it has been mentioned that the preference should be given to Law Graduates. These rules have been made in pursuance of provisions of Rules 2A and 2B of the Rules of 1953. 22. Rules of 1953 authorise the Chief Justice to lay down the manner and mothod of the recruitments and also the qualifications. A perusal of the notification dated the 18th February, 1976 shows that for Lower Division Clerks in Clause 1, phrase used is, 'a competitive examination'. This appears to be so because it was a case of recruitment which was to be made directly from the new candidates and, therefore, competitive examination alone could have determined their merit. Then comes clause 2 regarding Upper Division Clerks, where it has been expressly mentioned that the promotions should be made on the basis of the seniority subject to efficiency. 23. The controversial clause 3 unfortunately used the phrase, 'a test', and leaves it to speculation and interpretation as to whether this test is to be 'a qualifying test' or 'competitive test'. Obviously, clause 3 contemplates promotions and no direct recruitment. It has also been pleaded by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in their reply that before considering the question of promotion, service record of the employees who appeared in the test, have been examined. The omission of the word, 'qualifying' or 'competitive' or 'merit' and also, omission of the word, 'seniority' has created serious problem of interpretation. 24. In view of the omission of all the above phrases/words, 'seniority', 'merit', 'competitive', 'qualifying' or any of the above phrases, complex and complicated exercise is required for interpreting the meaning of word, 'a test' used in clause 3 of the notification dated the 18th February, 1976. 25. The conduct of the Registry of the High Court in interpretation has not remained consistent because as per the narration of undisputed facts, Shri Ashutosh who obtained only 34 marks was given preference in promotion to another candidate who obtained 67 marks in the year 1976 after these rules came into force. 25. The conduct of the Registry of the High Court in interpretation has not remained consistent because as per the narration of undisputed facts, Shri Ashutosh who obtained only 34 marks was given preference in promotion to another candidate who obtained 67 marks in the year 1976 after these rules came into force. It is obvious therefore that the High Court, itself, has interpreted clause 3 regarding promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter Court Fees Examiner to mean that the 'test' mentioned in it is not 'a competitive test' nor 'merit test' nor a merit list is to be prepared but, it is only a 'qualifying test'. If that would not have been so, how Shri Ashutosh who secured only 34 marks, could have been promoted in preference to other one who secured 67 marks. 26. It is true that there cannot be any estoppel against statute and if the High Court has interpreted clause 3 wrongly earlier, it cannot be estopped from interpreting it rightly now, but that is not the case of the High Court Registry. Unfortunately, even though application was moved and record was summoned, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have choosen not to produce the record and not to explain this contradiction in their conduct. 27. It is in this background that I am required to interprete clause 3. I am convinced that the absence of word. 'competitive test' as used in clause I of notification in the cases of Lower Division Clerk and similary absence of 'seniority subject to efficiency' as used in clause 2 for U. D. C. and keeping a vague and omnibus phrase, 'a test' in clause 3 has resulted in its interpretation in two different contradictory phrases by the Registrar of High Court as per the case of interpretation given in the case of Ashutosh earlier and now in the present case. Such a situation should have been avoided by the Registry because even though the Registry acts on the administrative side but rule of law having atrributes of certainty and exectness, uniformity and equality, in contradistinction to arbitreriness in equality. discrimination, should be followed by the High Court which is guardian custodian, watch dog and sentinels of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, for ensuring rule of law. 28. discrimination, should be followed by the High Court which is guardian custodian, watch dog and sentinels of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, for ensuring rule of law. 28. It is difficult to understand why express phrase like, 'qualifying' or 'eompetitive' or 'merit' or 'seniority' have been avoided in clause 3. To me, it appears to be a case of negligent drafting only and it would be uncharitable and unwarranted to term it as deliberate one. 29. In the absence of the above specific 'qualifying' phrase I have got no option but to revert back to the parent rule 8 of the 1953 Rules which reads as under: "8. Promotion :- Subject to the requirement of efficiency promotion shall ordinarily be made according to seniority. An official may receive special promotion for recognised merit irrespective of the grade to which he may belong, or of his seniority within the grade." Rule 8 insists on promotion on the basis of seniority subject to the requirement of efficiency. These rules have been framed under Article 229 clause (2) of the Constitution and while framing them, the Chief Justice has obtained the approval of the Governor of Rajasthan. These are parent rules and the notification of 1976 in which clause 3 exists is only ancilliary, subservient, secondary and subject to the Rules of 1953. Of course, by virtue of rules 2A and 2B, the Chief Justice has been authorised to specify the method by which recruitment of the post is to be made but while doing so, parent rules cannot be superseded or nothing can be done in contradiction or derogation to those parent rules. Clause 3 is, therefore, to be interpreted in the spirit of Rule 8 which is specified for promotions and if that is done, it is clear that promotions can be made on the basis of seniority subject to the efficiency. In that view of the matter, phrase, 'a test' can only mean 'a qualifying test' and not 'a competitive test' or 'a merit test'. After the reply was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the petitioner in his rejoinder challenged the constitution of the Departmental Protion Committee on the ground that no such committee was contemplated either in the advertisement or the instructions or the Rules. After the reply was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the petitioner in his rejoinder challenged the constitution of the Departmental Protion Committee on the ground that no such committee was contemplated either in the advertisement or the instructions or the Rules. It was further pointed out that the Committee has been constituted after the examinations and the result, because the meeting was held on 23rd May, 19 where as the result of examination was declared on 2nd October, 1977 as per para 8 of the reply. It was further argued that the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot act restrospectively. The learned counsel pointed that no panel can be prepared as there is no provision for the same, nor life of panel can be kept for one year or more than one year as contended. This submission of the petitioner is not wholly without force, though Departmental Promotion Committee can always be constituted to decide question of promotions as per rules and this can be done even in the absence of specific rules but the Departmental Promotion Committee becomes material only if seniority cum-merit is to be considered. In the instant case, the respondent's stand is that test held was not a 'qualifying test' but it was 'competitive test' and the results of the test showed the merit and merit list was prepared in pursuance of that. if promotions are to be given on the basis of the merit list of the examinations, though in my opinion, it is not permissible as per the existing rules then the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot have any right of considering cases on the basis of either services record or the Seniority or any other relevant material. 30. It appears that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were not clear and had doubt of interpretation of clause 3 and on account of that. they sometimes in reply take the stand that it is merit list which is conclusive for the determination of promotion to the post of Stamp-Reporter and Court Fees Examiner and at other place, they have taken the stand that the service record was examined and the matter was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It may not be out of place to mention here that clause 3 expressly provides even for giving preference to the law Graduate and the petitioner claims to be one falling in that category. It may not be out of place to mention here that clause 3 expressly provides even for giving preference to the law Graduate and the petitioner claims to be one falling in that category. If merit list is the only criteria then this provision becomes redundent. The provision on panel appears to be neither contemplated by the advertisement, nor by the instructions of 1976. In spite of the objection of the petitioner in the rejoinder, the respondents did not place on record either decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee or any order pertaining to the provision of the panel. 31. The petitioner in his writ petition challenged the promotion of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 on the ground of violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India but I am of the opinion that it is the interpretation of the rules which would decide the fate of the petitioner and the respondents and Article 14 cannot be invoked because there has been no discrimination as such. Whatever omission or commissions have been done by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has been due to wrong interpretation of the phrase, 'a test' in clause 3 of the notification dated the 18th February, 1976 and treating it as a 'competitive test' instead of 'qualifying test'. 32. The result of the above discussion is that 'a test' contemplated by clause 3 for the purpose of promotions of Stamp Reporter and Court Fees Examiner according to the notification of 18th February, 1976 means 'a qualifying test' only and the promotions are to be done from Upper Division Clerks on the basis of seniority subject to the requirement of efficiency. The requirement of efficiency is fulfilled once a candidate passes qualifying test. In that view of the matter, petitioner's case should have been considered for the promotion of the post of Stamp-Reporter and Court Fees Examiner, by adjudging the comparative seniority as he has passed the qualifying test and was, therefore, fulfilling the qualification of the efficiency. Moreover, since he was law graduate this fact should have been taken into consideration though it is not necessary that as a result of this, he was bound to be promoted. 33. Obviously, this has not been done. Moreover, since he was law graduate this fact should have been taken into consideration though it is not necessary that as a result of this, he was bound to be promoted. 33. Obviously, this has not been done. It is, therefore, directed that promotions to the post of Stamp-Reporter and Court Fees Examiner in pursuance of the advertisement dated the 20th August, 1977 (Anuexure 6) and the test held thereafter should be made on the basis of seniority subject to the efficiency. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to re-adjust and pass orders for the promotions from the results of the test held in pursuance of the advertisement dated the 20th August, 1977 by first promoting the senior most persons who have passed the qualifying test. 34. As a logical result of the above direction the promotions the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are quashed, but they are permitted to continue on the present post for a period of only one month during which the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 should pass fresh orders for the promotions to the post of Stamp Reporter/Court Fees Examiner and the consequential senior post on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency by passing the qualifying test, the result of which has been submitted to this Court on 7th March, 1979 alongwith the affidavit of Shri Ganesh Chandra Saxena, Additional Registrar of High Court Bench, Jaipur, and the test for which was held on 25th September, 1977. Since as per the result dated the 2nd October, 1977 produced before this court alongwith affidavit of Shri Ganesh Chandra Saxena, Additional Registrar on 7th March, 1979, the petitioner has passed the qualifying test and he is senior to all other respondents except Inder Singh, therefore, be would he entitled to promotion to the post of Stamp-Reporter Court Fee Examiner with effect from the date of the announcement of the result and further, he would also be entitled to get further promotions on the post of Bench Reader as and when juniors to him were promoted. 35. 35. Before parting with this judgement, it must be observed that the above complications have arisen on account of the use of the word, 'a test' in clause 3 of notification dated the 18th February, 1976 in an unqualified manner and, therefore, it would be for the proper authorities to consider all these provisions for making suitable amendments, if so advised. 36. The writ petition is accepted as indicated above without any order as to costs. *******