JUDGMENT 1. - These two special appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29/9/82 passed by the Darned Single Judge in S.B.I. Civil Writ Petition No. 960 of 1978, Jagjivanchand Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (reported in 1982 RLR 821 ) accepting the writ petition and directing that the promotions to the post of stamp reporter and court-fee examiner in pursuance of advertisement dated 20th August, 1977 and the test held thereafter should be made on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency and it was further directed that respondents No. 1 and 2 should re-adjust and pass orders for the promotions from the results of the test by first promoting the senior-most persons who have passed the qualifying test and also quashing the promotions of respondents No. 3 to 7. 2. The Writ Petition No. 960 of 1978, was filed by Jagjivanchand Bhandari on 18/2/1978,with the allegations that the petitioner had joined the service of the High Court as a Lower Division Clerk and was confirmed on that post on 1/4/1960 Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as UDC on 11/8/1967 and confirmed and UDC on 1/10/1971. As such he was eligible for appointment to the post of Stamp Reporter and that he had been deputed to work as Stamp Reporter on several occasions for sufficiently long time. The High Court staff is governed by the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 which were promulgated by the Chief Justice of Rajasthan, with the approval of the Governor under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. Rule 2-A provides for method of recruitment and Rule 2-B provides that the qualifications required for appointment to the various categories of posts by departmental promotion or otherwise shall be such as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, by general or special order, specify. In pursuance of these Rules 2-A and 2-B of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of 'Service of Staff) Rules, 1953, the Hon'ble Chief Justice had issued a circular No. Estt/H. C./76152 dated 18/2/1976 (Annexure 5) specifying the method of recruitment and qualifications for appointment to the various post. In pursuance of these Rules 2-A and 2-B of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of 'Service of Staff) Rules, 1953, the Hon'ble Chief Justice had issued a circular No. Estt/H. C./76152 dated 18/2/1976 (Annexure 5) specifying the method of recruitment and qualifications for appointment to the various post. Item 3 of this Circular deals with Stamp Reporters and Court-fee Examiners, which is reproduced hereunder :"Stamp Reporters and Court-fee examiners :Recruitment to the post 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 Jurisdictions 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 and Suits Valuation Act. Preference may be given to Law Graduates. 3. In pursuance of these Rules, an advertisement No. Estt/HC/77/322 was issued on 2018/1977 (Annexure 6) for holding a test for filling the posts of Stamp Reporter and Court-fee Examiner on 10/9/1977 in the subjects mentioned therein. Only UDCs on the establishment of the Rajasthan High Court were eligible to sit in the test and preference was to be given to the Law Graduates. She applications were invited by 1/9/1977. The petitioner made an application and also appeared in the test held on 2/9/1977. The result of the test was not declared. But, in the mean while Shri Govind Ram Purohit, respondent No. 4, was appointed as Stamp Reporter by promotion by an order dated 3/10/1977, in which it was mentioned that he had passed the Stamp Reporter's test held on 25/9/1977. Thereafter, by another order dated 26/5/1978, Shri Om Prakesh Bora and Shri Ghanshyam Das V.R. were appointed as officiating Stamp Reporters. By yet another order dated 11/8/1978. Shri Indar Singh and Shri Parsu Ram Dangi were appointed as stamp reporters. Yet another person Shri Ballabh Das Bohra was promoted as Stamp Reporter, by order dated 8/9/1978. The petitioner made several representations and prayed that the result of the test held on 25/9/1977 should be declared. By yet another order dated 11/8/1978. Shri Indar Singh and Shri Parsu Ram Dangi were appointed as stamp reporters. Yet another person Shri Ballabh Das Bohra was promoted as Stamp Reporter, by order dated 8/9/1978. The petitioner made several representations and prayed that the result of the test held on 25/9/1977 should be declared. The petitioner was informed by the Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court by his order dated 27/11/1978 (Annexure 2) that the copy cannot be issued to the petitioner The petitioner has submitted that all the persons appointed, as aforesaid, were junior to the petitioner except Shri Indar Singh and, therefore, he filed the writ petition with the following prayer : "(i) 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 respondents 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. (ii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case be issued; (iii) costs of the writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 4. A notice to show cause was issued to the High Court and the Registrar of the High Court as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and a stay order was passed that respondents No. 1 and 2 would not pass orders of promotion in pursuance of the test to be held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20/10/1978. The stay order was modified on 4/4/1979, and it was made clear that the promotion, if any, made during the pendency of the writ petition would be subject to float decision of the writ petition. Respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted their para-wise reply and submitted that it was not necessary to declare the result publicly as it was a departmental examination held to find out the merits of the candidates. Respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted their para-wise reply and submitted that it was not necessary to declare the result publicly as it was a departmental examination held to find out the merits of the candidates. The Rules also do not require the declaration of the result of such departmental examination. The persons promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter/Court-fee Examiner were so promoted according to the merit list prepared on the basis of the test, held for the purpose on 25/9/1977 irrespective of their relative seniority in the cadre of UDC. Ghanshyam Das V.R. and Parsu Ram Dangi were promoted according to the merits accrued by them amongst the scheduled caste candidates irrespective of their relative seniority and the petitioner had appeared in the test for the translator held on 21/8/1977, also and has been promoted as a translator, though the result of that test was also not declared and, according to Rules 2-A and 2-B and the Circular issued by the Chief Justice dated 18/2/1976, recruitment's to the post of Stamp Reporters and Court-fee Examiner and translator are to be made by promotion from amongst the UDCs after holding a test on the basis of merit. In the meeting of the DPC held on 23/5/ 1979, it was decided that the penal of successful candidates in the test of Stamp Reporter/Court-fee-examiner would be valid for one year i.e. upto 2/10/1978 and, therefore notice was issued on 20/10/1978 for holding a test which was, in fact, held on 24th December, 1978. The examination is held to assess the relative merit of the applicants for promotion and, they are being promoted on the basis of the merit secured by them at such examination. An additional affidavit of Shri Ganesh Chandra, Addl Registrar. Rajasthan High Court, was filed on 7/3/1979, including the result-sheet and the marks obtained by each of the candidates appearing in the examination held on 25/9/1977. The result-sheet is marked as Annexure R/1 which reads as under : "The following Upper Division Clerks appeared in the test held on 25 Sept. An additional affidavit of Shri Ganesh Chandra, Addl Registrar. Rajasthan High Court, was filed on 7/3/1979, including the result-sheet and the marks obtained by each of the candidates appearing in the examination held on 25/9/1977. The result-sheet is marked as Annexure R/1 which reads as under : "The following Upper Division Clerks appeared in the test held on 25 Sept. 1977 for the post of Stamp Reporter and their result is as under : Marks obtained 1 Shri Govind Ram Purohit 64 2 Shri Om Prakash Bora 59 3 Shri Ballabh Das Bohra 50 4 Shri Indar Singh Sankhala 50 5 Shri Abdul Hamid 49 6 Shri Durga Chaan Saini 47 7 Shri Jagdish Bhati 46 8 Shri Abdul Wazid 45 9 Shri Jagjiwan Chand Bhandari 44 10 Shri Prem Roop Chand Bhandari 42 11 Shri Umrao Mal Surana 42 12 Shri Ghansbyam Das V.R 36 13 Shri Parsu Ram Dangi 35 14 Shri Raghubir Singh 29 15 Shri Roop Raj Singhvi 25 5. Yet another affidavit dated 21/3/1979 was filed by Shri Ganesh Chandra, Addl. Registrar. The relevant paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are reproduced hereunder : "2. That, in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 23/5/1978 to consider the matter regarding promotions for the posts of Bench Readers - stamp Reporter and Court-fee examiner of the Rajasthan High Court it was decided that the penal of the successful candidates in the test of Stamp Reporter/Court fee Examiner may be treated as alive for one year i.e., upto 2.10.1978 and the successful candidates out of this penal may be considered for promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter and Court-fee Examiner; 3. That, while making the promotions of Shri Om Prakash Bora, Shri Ghan Shyam Das V.R. and Shri Parsu Ram Dangi, their service record etc. was also considered by the Committee for the said post of Stamp Reporter and Court-fee Examiner. 4. That, the promotions on the said posts are made on the basis of efficiency i.e. merit in the marks obtained and also service record and seniority." 6. Parsu Ram Dangi also filed a reply to the writ petition. was also considered by the Committee for the said post of Stamp Reporter and Court-fee Examiner. 4. That, the promotions on the said posts are made on the basis of efficiency i.e. merit in the marks obtained and also service record and seniority." 6. Parsu Ram Dangi also filed a reply to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted a rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 and has asserted that there is no provision for preparing any merit list either under the Rules of 1952, or under the administrative orders issued by the Chief Justice on 18/2/1976 and has referred to Rule 8 of 1952 Rules dealing with the promotion, according to which promotions shall ordinarily be made according to the seniority subject to the requirement of efficiency and has also contended that there was no provision for constituting a Departmental Promotion Committee and even if the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted, it had no power to decide about the life of the penal for the test held in September 1977. The examination test held was only a qualifying examination and there is no provision for preparing a merit list or promoting the persons on the basis of merit list and has further asserted that the test was only a qualifying test and the promotion had to be made on the basis of seniority amongst those who qualified in the test and since the petitioner had qualified the test and he being senior should have been promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter/Court-fee examiner. 7. The petitioner also moved an application on 28.3.1979, for the direction that the original record of the Departmental Promotion Committee should be got produced and an order was passed directing the respondents to produce the original record for the perusal of the Court. 7. The petitioner also moved an application on 28.3.1979, for the direction that the original record of the Departmental Promotion Committee should be got produced and an order was passed directing the respondents to produce the original record for the perusal of the Court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments of the parties has come to the conclusion that the word "test" can only mean a qualifying test and not a competitive test, or a merit test and, since the respondents have failed to place on record any decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee or any order pertaining to the provisions for preparing a penal, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the penal could not have been prepared and, therefore the promotions are to be made from UDCs on the basis of seniority subject to the requirement of efficiency. The requirement of efficiency is fulfilled once a candidate passes or qualifies the test and therefore he has accepted the writ petition and directed that the promotions to the posts of Stamp Reporter and Court fee Examiner should be made on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency and he further directed the High Court to reconsider and pass orders for promotions by first promoting the senior most persons who have passed the qualifying test and quashed the promotions of respondents No. 3 to 7. It is against this judgment of the learned Single Judge that the present special appeals have been filed before the Division Bench. 8. Mr. M.I. Khan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has very strenuously contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous inasmuch as he has granted relief to the petitioner which was never prayed by him. The learned Single Judge was also wrong when he observed that respondents No. 1 and 2 were not clear and therefore they have shifted their stand from time to time. He has argued that respondents No. 1 and 2 have been consistent and have always maintained that the test contemplated in Clause 3 was a competitive test and not qualifying test. He has further argued that respondents No. 1 and 2 were clearly within their administrative powers for preparing a penal as there is no bar anywhere and is therefore not contrary to any statutory provisions and cannot be questioned. He has further argued that respondents No. 1 and 2 were clearly within their administrative powers for preparing a penal as there is no bar anywhere and is therefore not contrary to any statutory provisions and cannot be questioned. He has further argued that the observations of the learned Single Judge that the Departmental Promotion Committee can be constituted only if selection are to be based on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit are also wrong and without any basis. Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee is equally necessary for selections to be made on the basis of merit. He has further submitted that Rule 8 of the 1953 Rules has no application so far as the appointment to the post of Stamp Reporter and Court-fee Examiner is concerned Even if the Rule is held to be applicable, Rule 8 has used the word "ordinarily" meaning thereby that it is not mandatory. The learned counsel for the respondents have supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 9. Mr. Umarao Mal Surana, Jagdish Bhati and Parsu Ram Dangi applied for being impleaded as respondents in D.B. Special Appeal No. 283 of 1982. They were not allowed to be impleaded as party to the special appeal; but were allowed to appear as interveners in the case. The operation of the order of the learned Single Judge was stayed on 5/11/1982 after hearing the parties and all the learned counsel for the parties requested that the whole appeal may be decided at the stage of admission only. Arguments of the parties were heard at great length at the stage of admission. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants have argued that a special knowledge is required for the post of Stamp Reporter and Court-fee examiner. They should be well-versed with the High Court Rules, Limitation Act and the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suit Valuation Act and therefore the Circular dated 18/2/1976, issued by the Chief Justice has prescribed for holding a test for promotion for the post of Stamp Reporter and Court-fee Examiner in the following subjects: 1. Rajasthan High Court Rules 2. Limitation Act 3. Rajasthan Court-fees and Suit Valuation Act And preference has to be given to the Law Graduates. Rajasthan High Court Rules 2. Limitation Act 3. Rajasthan Court-fees and Suit Valuation Act And preference has to be given to the Law Graduates. Therefore, he argued that it is only by merit in the result of this test that the promotion should be made and the seniority should not be the basis for promotion. He has also relied on the affidavit of Shri Ganesh Chandra dated 21/3/1979. He has also pleaded that since the facts regarding Asutosh are not on record, the learned Single Judge could not have relied on those facts which were beyond pleadings and there was no opportunity to the appellants to mike their submissions in that connection. He has further urged that the test cannot be held to be a qualifying test as no qualifying marks have been prescribed. He has further submitted that the Court cannot add words into the statute or the rules. The Court can only interprete the words used in the circular dated 18/2/1976. 12. Shri Nathu Lal Jain, Advocate General and Shri Paras Kuhad, counsel for Shri Ghanshyam Das, have also supported the arguments of Shri Khan. They have submitted that the word "test" means competitive only to determine the merit. If the test would have been a qualifying test, then some marks ought to have been prescribed as qualifying marks. As soon as any candidate obtains those marks, as prescribed, he becomes eligible for promotion. But since no qualifying marks have been prescribed, the intention is obvious that it is not a qualifying test, but a competitive test to determine the merit and the word "test" has not been preceded with any word qualifying or screening and the words used are "basis of test" or "after the test". Both would mean that the test will be the sole criteria. Rule 8 of the High Court Rules as well as the instructions issued by the Chief Justice should have been read together and since special type of work has to be done as a Stamp Reporter, special knowledge has to be tested and the person who is more conversent and efficient in those subjects should be selected and promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter and as such, the test has to be competitive one. On the other hand, Shri Ganpat Singh Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and has argued that Rule 8 should govern and override the Circular issued by the Chief Justice in 1976, as the circular has been issued under the powers given under Rules 2-A and 2-B and under Article 229 and, if the test is taken to be a competitive it would be contrary to Rule 8 and hence, invalid, to relied, in this connection, on S.G. Sachdev v. Union of India 1980 (4) SCC 562 , wherein it has been observed that the Director General could not have issued any directions which were in consistent with the recruitment rules. Mr. Singhvi has further referred to several authorities to show the distinction between the merit - cum - seniority and seniority - cum - merit and if the rules are silent as to which of the two modes should be adopted. In this connection he has referred to D.K. Bhatnagar v. State of H.P. (1979(2) SLR 693) , wherein it has been observed that unless the rules show that a particular promotion should be based principally on the principle of selection, the formula of merit-cum-seniority should not be applied and the normal principle of seniority-cum-merits should be followed He has also relied on N. Srinath v State of Mysore (1972 SLR 449) , wherein it has been observed that 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 senior. In the case of the First type of promotion, a senior must be considered first and then when he is found unfit, the case of next junior must be considered and even if the promotion is by selection due regard must be had for seniority also. 13. Another authority on which he has placed reliance is State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas ( AIR 1976 SC 490 ) , wherein it has been observed that with regard to promotion the normal principles are either merit-cum-seniority or seniority-cum-merit. Seniority cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though less meritorious shall have priority. 14. Seniority cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though less meritorious shall have priority. 14. He has further relied on Punnose v. Manager P&T (1977 (2) SLR 399) , wherein it has been observed that 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 and will have to be considered. 15. Another authority he has relied on is Hari Dutt v. State of H. P. (1974 (1) SLR 208) , which was a case of appointment and promotion of judicial officers. No rules were framed by the Government for promotion to the post of District Judge and looking to the duties and the responsibility attached to the post of District Judge, it was held that appointment to that post must be made by selection and most meritorious officer upon an appraisal of the comparative merit of eligible Subordinate Judges. Selection means that the man selected for promotion must be of merit. Seniority cum fitness means that the senior persons, unless unfit, should get the promotion and this principle has been generally applied at the lover levels of service where the duties are of a routine nature. But when the question arises of appointment to a higher service consisting of posts carrying superior responsibility the emphasis shifts from seniority-cum-fitness to merit-cum-seniority. The principle of merit determines that the most meritorious or best qualified person is selected for promotion. 16. Another authority he has relied on is Shadi Lal v. D. C. Gurgaon (1974 (1) SLR 217) . That was also a case of promotion of judicial officers, wherein it was observed that in view of Rule 9 of the Rules governing the services, that promotion to a selection post must be made on the basis of seniority, that is if senior most eligible person has merit he shall be selected irrespective of better merit of his junior. 17. Mr. Singhvi has further argued that if the same word occurs in different place it should not have necessarily the same meaning, but the context should be seen in which the word has been used. 17. Mr. Singhvi has further argued that if the same word occurs in different place it should not have necessarily the same meaning, but the context should be seen in which the word has been used. He has further argued that the Departmental Promotion Committee should not have been constituted as there is no provision for constituting the DPC, then it is not clear as to who should constitute the DPC and who were its members; what records were placed before them and even if the DPC should be formed, it could not fix the life of the penal to last upto a particular date. He has drawn our attention to original Rule 9 which has been reproduced in Parmatma Sharan v. Chief Justice ( AIR 1964 Raj 13 ) where-in all the posts were included as non-selection post and the amendment in Rule 9 shows the intention of the authority and therefore the promotion should be held on the basis of selection only, i.e., on merit. Later clause of Rule 8 has not been pressed in service at any stage, but relates to individual or similar case. Shri A.K. Bhandari, counsel for Shri Parsu Ram Dangi and Jagdisb Bhati, interveners has argued that Shri Parsu Ram and Shri Ghanshyam V.R. are from the reserved quota being scheduled caste and Shri Dangi is also senior to Jagdish Bhati. Therefore, his promotion cannot be quashed. He has also supported the arguments of Shri Singhvi that the post of Stamp Reporter is not a selection post Rule 8 deals with promotion to all the posts, whereas Rule 9 deals with promotions to post carrying special responsibility and requiring special qualification and under Clause 6 cmbidied only the post mentioned therein. All other posts are governed by Rule 8. Therefore, the seniority should prevail and the tests are held only to judge their suitability and no merit list can be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the test. All other posts are governed by Rule 8. Therefore, the seniority should prevail and the tests are held only to judge their suitability and no merit list can be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the test. He has relied on the meaning of the word "test" as given in Wort on Law Laxican 1988 and in Black's Dictionary and has argued that it only means that it is an additional qualification for qualifying or fitness which should be seen at the time of promotion and any one who qualifies or is found to be fit by holding the test should be held to be eligible for promotion and the promotion should be governed by seniority. He has relied on a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chhatar Singh v. State of Punjab (1976 (2) SLR 501) , wherein it has been observed "We assume that normally when a written test is prescribed it means that the candidate must pass or qualify in the same. It thus becomes a prerequisite or at least a necessary qualification before the public servant can be considered for promotion. Therefore, unless it is expressly stated to the contrary, the prescription of a written test in practice virtually lays down an additional qualification for the purposes of promotion or selection. 18. He has also relied on V.J. Bhave v. I.G. of Registration, 1976 Lab. I.C. 1349 , wherein it has been held that departmental examination should not be ignored for promotion. He has submitted that Jagdish Bhati is senior- most UDC who has passed the test in 1976 and has obtained 46 marks. But he has not filed the writ petition is he was witching the outcome of the writ petition filed by the present petitioners. He h is referred to (11) The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another v. A.V.R. Siddhanti and others ( AIR 1974 SC 1755 ) , wherein it has been held that if the policy is challenged on the ground of being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, all the employees are not necessary party and even if Jagdish Bhati has not filed a writ petition relief should not be denied to him. 19. 19. Shri R.N. Munshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Urmrao Mal Surana, intervener, has also adopted the arguments of Shri Singhvi and Shri Bhandari and has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Umarao Mal has secured 42 marks in 1977-test and he being senior also claims that he should have been appointed as a Stamp Reporter. He relied on M.K. Thomas v. High Court ( AIR 1977 Ker. 166 ) , which was a case relating to the promotion of certain categories of High Court staff, in which it was held as under : "We do not think that the theory of disturbance of seniority and unsettling of promotions, or the doctrine of 'sitting back' with security and composure can have any application to the facts." 20. Since the petitioner has challenged the policy matter as such, it was not necessary for other persons aggrieved to file separate writ petitions, or become party to the writ petition and, if the High Court holds that the policy in making promotions was faulty and not in accordance with the law and against the rules, the other persons who are effected should also be given the advantage of the said order of the High Court and, therefore, the fact that Shri Surana has not filed a writ petition or had not challenged the impugned order earlier will not disentitle him o get the relief. To support his argument he has further relied on (13) Channabasavish v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1965 SC 1293 ) , wherein it has been observed as under : "It is very unfortunate that these persons should be unrooted after they had been appointed but if equality and equal protection before the law have any meaning and if our public institutions are to inspire that confidence which is expected of them we would be failing in our duty if we do not, even at the cost of considerable inconvenience to Government and the selected candidates do the right thing." 21. He has further placed reliance on Vishwanath v. State of M.P. (1973 (1) SLR 1053) , wherein it has been observed that : "Another argument advanced on behalf of the respondents 5, 6 and 9 was that promotions have already been made to higher posts and it would not be prop r to interfere with those promotions after such a long time. We are not concerned with the effect. It may be that the State Government may not like to disturb these promotions, but the unfortunate part of the situation is that the petitioner has been denied his due promotions unwarrantably and illegally. It is open to the State Government to do justice to the petitioner in this behalf even without disturbing the promotions given to respondents 4 to 9." 22. Strong reliance has also been placed on behalf of the respondents on State of Kerala v. T. P. Roshana ( AIR 1979 SC 765 ) , wherein it has been observed that: "The root of the grievance and the fruit of the writ are not individual but collective and while the 'adversary system' makes the judgment a mere umpire, traditionally speaking, the community orientation of the judicial function, so desirable in the third World remedial jurisprudence, transforms the court's power into affirmative structuring of redress so as to make it personally meaningful and socially relevant. frustration of invalidity is part of the judicial duty; fulfilment of legality is complementary." 23. Having considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the Learned Single Judge, the relevant record, if the case, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the word "test" means only qualifying and not competitive test or merit test. 24. If we carefully examine the scheme of the order dated 18/2/1976, issued by the Chief Justice, it is obvious that the recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk shall be made by direct recruitment and Rule 1 specifically uses the words "competitive examination" and marks have also been mentioned in the subject. 25. Now, coming to Rule 2 regarding promotion or recruitment to the post of UDC, it is to be made by promotion from LDCs on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency, and there is no test or examination provided for promotion to the post of UDC. 26. Now, we come to Rule 3 regarding stamp reporters and court-fee examiner: The recruitment to the post of Stamp Reporter and Court-fee examiner has to be made by promotion from amongst the UDCs after holding a test in the subjects given therein. Herein analogous to rule 1, no marks have been provided and the word "competitive" has also not been used. Herein analogous to rule 1, no marks have been provided and the word "competitive" has also not been used. The rule making authority is supposed to have known the difference between the words "competitive examination ' and "after holding a test". We cannot ignore Rule 8 of the 1953 Rules, which is general in term, dealing with the promotion of High Court staff as a whole for all the posts except mentioned in Rule 9. Reading Rule 8 and clause (3) of the instructions dated 18/2/1976, there, is no manner of doubt that the recruitment to the post of stamp reporters and court-fee examiners has to be made by promotion as envisaged by Rule 8 after holding a test that is subject to efficiency as envisaged in Rule 8. So far as the promotion, it has to be made on the basis of seniority subject to the condition that he qualifies in the test to be held in the subjects mentioned in Rule 3. 27. Now, we come to Instruction 4, Bench Readers have to be promoted from amongst Stamp Reporters and court-fee examiners on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency, though no test is envisaged under this Rule, but still the promotions are made on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency. As regards, translators, recruitment has to be made by holding a test in English and Hindi. There also the word "competitive" or "merit" has not been used before the word ''test" and, therefore, it should also have the same meaning as under Rule 3. Coming to instruction 6, which provides for promotion to the post of Senior Bench Reader from amongst Bench Readers, on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency and again in Instruction 7, regarding recruitment to the post of Stenographer has to be made by direct recruitment after holding a test. Similarly, for the post of Private Secretary Selection Grade and Superintendent Paper Book. Section promotions have to be made on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that "after holding a test" under Rule 3 will mean that the test is being held to find out the efficiency of a person and therefore, it is qualifying and not competitive. We need not refer to the practice or the example in the case of Ashutosh as the facts are not before us. We need not refer to the practice or the example in the case of Ashutosh as the facts are not before us. The learned Single Judge should not have taken this example into consideration. The Registrar or the Deputy Registrar has no authority to convert the test into a competitive test. Therefore, the interpretation of the Registry of the High Court in considering the test as a competitive test is not correct. 28. Special Appeal No. 284/1982 filed by Ghanshyam V.R. is allowed. His promotion and that of Shri Parsuram Dangi on the post of Stamp Reporter and other higher posts being made on account of members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is maintained. 29. The judgment of the learned Single Judge so far as quashing the appointment and promotions of these two persons is concerned, is set aside. 30. Special Appeal No. 283/1982 filed by the Rajasthan High Court is dismissed. However, the relief given by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by Shri Jagjiwan Chand is modified in the following manner: "It is directed that promotions from the cadre of Upper Division Clerks to the post of Stamp Reporters/Court-fee Examiners in pursuance to the advertisement dated 20th August, 1977, and the test held thereafter should be made on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency. The respondents No. 1 and 2 in the writ petition are directed to readjust and pass orders for promotion on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency from amongst the Upper Division Clerks who have passed the test and not on the basis of marks secured in the qualifying test. Promotions on the higher posts should thereafter be made in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Rules made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in his order dated 18th February, 1976. The promotions on the post of Stamp Reporter/Court-fee Examiner shall be given from the date of pronouncement of the result of qualifying test. Further promotions to the higher posts shall also be made keeping in view the seniority on the post of Stamp Reporter/Court-fee Examiner subject to efficiency for such higher posts as and when such posts have fallen vacant." Appeal No. 284/82 allowed and Appeal No. 283/82 dismissed. *******