Judgment :- 1. The main attack in this batch of writ petitions is against the validity of the "Special Rules for the categories of Head Clerk/ Head Accountant, Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk of the Kerala Land Revenue Department included in the Kerala Ministerial Subordinate Service", framed by the State Government on 16th June, 1980 in exercise of power under the Kerala Public Services Act. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to the issue of the impugned Rules are relevant. The clerical staff of the Revenue Department of the State consisted of three groups of employees: (i) those allotted from the erstwhile composite State of Madras on 1-11-1956 consequent on States reorganisation; (ii) those similarly allotted from the former Travancore-Cochin State and (iii) those appointed into the services of the Kerala Government after 1-11-1956. The first group ("Madras allottees") were governed by the provisions of the Madras Ministerial Service Rules. The second group ("T.C, allottees") were governed only by executive orders, as the T.C. Government had framed no statutory rules regarding qualifications, method of recruitment, promotion, ratio etc. As regards the third group ("Kerala recruits") there were really no binding rules or orders at all, as will presently he seen. 3. Under the Madras Ministerial Service Rules a Lower Division Clerk of the Revenue Department was eligible for promotion as Upper Division Clerk only after: (i) passing Revenue Test; (ii) undergoing Survey Training; and (iii) serving as Revenue Inspector in charge of a Firka for at least one year. And promotion was also to be made through selection based on merit and ability. On 27-2-1957 the Kerala Government issued an order to the effect that pending the framing of service rules uniformly applicable to all the employees in its services, officers allotted from Madras would continue to be governed by the Madras Rules and officers allotted from Travancore-Cochin would continue to be governed by the rules/orders which were applicable to them immediately before 1-11-1956. As regards Kerala recruits, the direction in the order was that they would be governed by the Travancore Service Regulations. Even in the absence of any such order the Madras allottees could not have been governed by any other rules so long as the Madras Ministerial Service Rules were not replaced or modified by other statutory rules framed by the Kerala State. Even in the absence of any such order the Madras allottees could not have been governed by any other rules so long as the Madras Ministerial Service Rules were not replaced or modified by other statutory rules framed by the Kerala State. Under the circumstances, the District Collectors of Palghat, Calicut and Cannanore were preparing select lists of L.D. clerks eligible for promotion as U.D clerks in accordance with the Madras Rules, and were effecting promotions on that basis, till about 1965 or 1966. In doing so, they had considered the claims of only Madras allottees i.e., the Kerala recruits were never considered for inclusion in the select lists. Another defect in the system was that even among Madras allottees, the principle of seniority was not being observed in the matter of posting them to work as Firka Revenue Inspectors, with the result that the claims of many senior L. D. Clerks belonging to the same group were being overlooked. In the meanwhile, on 16-6-1966, Government passed an order upgrading all posts of Firka Revenue Inspectors into posts of U. D. clerks, and thereafter, it was impossible to post any person to work as Firka Revenue Inspector Consequently promotions under the Madras Rules, based on service as Revenue Inspectors also became impossible. Attempts were made to get over these and other difficulties by issuing executive orders relaxing or modifying the Madras Rules, but they were all unsuccessful, as it was not legally permissible to alter the statutory rules in that fashion. The decssion of this Court reported in Vasudevan Nair v. State of Kerala ILR. (1979) 2 Ker. 743 contains a detailed survey of all these futile attempts, and it is therefore unnecessary to recount them in detail, except perhaps to point out that the Court had been making it clear, time and again, that the solution, if any, was to frame Rules in exercise of power vested in the Government under the Public Services Act. The important fact to be kept in mind, however, is that after 1965. or 1966 no Madras allottee was regularly promoted as U. D. clerk in accordance with the rules, though the rules continued to be in force for a number of years thereafter. 4. The important fact to be kept in mind, however, is that after 1965. or 1966 no Madras allottee was regularly promoted as U. D. clerk in accordance with the rules, though the rules continued to be in force for a number of years thereafter. 4. As regards T.C. allottees, promotions from the L.D. cadre to the U.D. cadre depended on seniority subject to qualifications; and the qualifications were Revenue Test, Account Test (Lower) and a pass in the Secretariat Manual Test or the District Office Manual Test There was also a graduate-non-graduate ratio in operation, and a principle relating to restoration of seniority depending on the passing of the Account Test. Another difference was that till July, 1959 there was no District-wise system for those people; the unit of appointment and promotion was the entire T. C. area. On 14-1-1963 the Kerala Government issued an order prescribing a new Account Test (usually called the 'unified test') applicable to all employees, but in as much as the test was not a requisite qualification under the Madras Rules and as the executive order was powerless to modify them, the requirement of this test became obligatory only for T. C. allottees and Kerala recruits, subject of course to R.13A of the "General Rules" in Part II of the KSSR. 5. Turning to the Kerala recruits (i. e. those appointed after 1-11-1956) reference has already been made to the Government Order dated 25-2-1957 which attempted to make Travancore Service Regulations applicable to their service conditions. The order was issued under a misconception that the TSR contained prescriptions regarding qualifications and methods of recruitment, but as a matter of fact, there were no such prescriptions applicable to L. D. and U. D. clerks of the Revenue Department Thus, despite the aforesaid order, the position was that the Kerala recruits were not actually governed by any set of rules or orders for quite a few years from 1-11-1956. The unified Account Test prescribed in 1963 was probably the first and last effective attempt to fix any kind of qualification for them. Certain other orders had been issued in 1959,1970 and 1972 covering the entire Revenue personnel, including Kerala recruits, but they were either not enforced or were set aside, when their validity came to be questioned before the Court, mainly at the instance of the Madras allottees. 6. Faced with the above situation. Certain other orders had been issued in 1959,1970 and 1972 covering the entire Revenue personnel, including Kerala recruits, but they were either not enforced or were set aside, when their validity came to be questioned before the Court, mainly at the instance of the Madras allottees. 6. Faced with the above situation. Government decided, in the year 1975, to frame a set of statutory rules applicable to all the three groups, and with retrospective effect from 1-11-1956. The rules were issued on 14-5-1975, in exercise of power under S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, and in supersession of all other rules and orders on the subject; but they too were promptly challenged before this Court in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution, on the ground that some of their provisions were arbitrary and discriminatory, in their application to the Madras allottees. And the challenge was upheld, to a considerable extent, in Vasudevan Nair's case ILR. (1979) 2 Ker. 743 already referred to. As the Public Services Act then stood, it was impermissible to give retrospectivity to rules made under it from any period anterior to its commencement; and noticing this defect, the Court held that except the preamble relating to supersession of prior rules and orders, the rest of the rules could operate only from 17-9-1968. In this view of the matter, it was really unnecessary to examine the further question whether different sets of qualifications and methods of recruitment could have been fixed for the different groups with effect from 15th June, 1966 as had been attempted by the Rules, but as the matter had been argued in full, the Court took the opportunity to consider that question also, and held: (i) After the supersession of all the rules and orders which were till then in force, the position was that there was only a common group of L. D. clerks in the Revenue Department of the whole State. They had lost their birth-marks, traceable to different historical backgrounds. They had lost their birth-marks, traceable to different historical backgrounds. It was therefore discriminatory to fix different sets of qualification for them, in the matter of promotion as U. D. clerks; (ii) The scheme for applying principles of selection (based on merit and ability) to Madras allottees alone up to 14-6-1966 was therefore discriminatory; (iii) Equally discriminatory was the provision for allotting surplus vacancies in the Malabar District units upto that date, to junior Kerala recruits; (iv) The exemption given to T. C. allottees and Kerala recruits from Chain Survey Training and service as Firka Revenue Inspector for the relevant period was also similarly illegal; and (v) In view of the above infirmities, R.2 and 8 dealing with method of appointment and fixation of qualifications had to be wholly struck down, as the rest of their provisions were not severable. Dealing with the resultant position and the steps that were necessary to save the situation, the Court said: "The resultant position is that the impugned Special Rules have been found to be illegal except to the extent to which they have superseded the Madras Ministerial Service Rules as well as the prior orders of the Travancore-Cochin Government on the subject relating to the prescription of the qualifications and method of appointment in respect of the posts of Head Clerk/ Head Accountant including upper division clerks and lower division Clerks borne on the establishment of the Land Revenue Department. Unless fresh rules on the subject are immediately issued by the State Government in accordance with law, there is bound to be serious administrative inconvenience and confusion A consequence which we wished to avoid and for which purpose we adjourned the hearing of the writ petitions from time to time after our having found prima facie that the challenge raised against the special rules was possessed of merit. The petitioners and persons situated like the have been compelled to approach this Court seeking reliefs against the withholding of promotions which they claim to be legitimately entitled to get. The interests of justice require that their just claims for promotion are not jeopardised by reason of the administrative delay on the part of the State Government in the matter of issuance of valid rules governing the subject. The interests of justice require that their just claims for promotion are not jeopardised by reason of the administrative delay on the part of the State Government in the matter of issuance of valid rules governing the subject. We, therefore, consider that the directions that had been issued by this court as per the order, dated 13th November, 1978 while adjourning the writ petitions for enabling the government to take its final decision in the matter should be kept in force until fresh rules or orders on the subject are issued by the Government in accordance with law. Hence, we direct that further promotions to the categories of Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar in the Revenue Department of the State should hereafter be made only on a provisional basis until fresh rules or orders are issued by the Government on the subject prescribing the mode of appointment and qualification, etc.. to the categories covered by the impugned Special Rules, which we have now struck down, and that the claims of the writ petitioners and also other persons similarly situated for the grant of such promotions should be considered and allowed on the basis of their seniority in the category of lower division clerks untrammelled by anything contained in the Special Rules which we have now declared to be illegal and void. The promotions that have been made on the basis of the impugned Special Rules should be reviewed and fresh promotions as aforesaid should be made in their stead within a period not exceeding there months from today." 7. It was in the above background that the Special Rules impugned herein were notified on 16th June, 1980. As in the case of the 1975 Rules, the preamble to the present Notification also provides for supersession of old rules and orders, and under R.1(2), they are deemed to have come into force from 1-11-1956 except to the extent otherwise provided. R.2 enumerates the three categories (L. D. clerk, U. D. clerk, Head Clerk/Head Accountant) to which the provisions are to be applied. R.3 deals with the methods of appointment, and omitting details which are not relevant, the scheme is that L. D. clerks could be promoted as U. D. clerks, and the latter, as Head Clerks/ Head Accountants. U. D. Typists and Stenographers could also be appointed by transfer as U. D. clerks. R.3 deals with the methods of appointment, and omitting details which are not relevant, the scheme is that L. D. clerks could be promoted as U. D. clerks, and the latter, as Head Clerks/ Head Accountants. U. D. Typists and Stenographers could also be appointed by transfer as U. D. clerks. R.4 specifies that the unit of appointment shall be Revenue District, subject to the proviso that the former T.C. area will be treated as a single unit till 7-7-1959. R.5 defines 'Appointing Authority' for the posts R.6 seeks to preserve the T. C. orders relating to graduate-non-graduate ratio, again subject to a proviso. R.7 and 8 arc concerned with qualifications regarding age and minimum general education. R.9, which corresponds to R.8 of the 1975 Rules, prescribes the Special qualifications required for appointment (by promotion or transfer) as U. D. clerks. Taking note of an amendment made in February, 1983 as per SRO. 175/83, the prescriptions now in force as per the Table attached to the Rule are the following:-"(a) Revenue Test (Travancore, Cochin or Madras): Provided that pass in the above test shall be obligatory only from 14-1-1963. (b) Account Test (Lower): Provided that pass in the above test will be obligatory only from 1-1-1964: Provided further that a pass in Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part I (Madras) shall be accepted as sufficient qualification in lieu of pass in the above test: (c) Secretariat Manual Test upto 20-2-1958 and District Office Manual Test thereafter: Provided that allotted officers who have completed 45 years of age on 14-1-1963 shall be exempted from passing the tests mentioned in clauses (b) and (c): Provided further that in the case of those who have passed Revenue Test Part I (Madras) which includes Test in District Office Manual also, the requirement of a pass in Secretariat Manual Test or District Office Manual Test referred to in clause (c) shall not be insisted on." Rule 10 prospectively prescribes the period of probation required for U. D. clerks and Head Clerks/ Head Accountants and R.11 lays down that L.D. clerks on probation should pass the District Office Manual Test during the period of probation. 8. The rules are being challenged by all the three groups, each anxious to retain the benefits or rights they had obtained under the old set up. 8. The rules are being challenged by all the three groups, each anxious to retain the benefits or rights they had obtained under the old set up. Within these groups also, there are a few who would be happy to support some of the provisions, but not all, depending upon what arrangement would suit them. For example, while the Madras allottees are generally in favour of saving the District Select Lists drawn up between 1956 and 1966, some of the seniors among them who had not been posted for work as Firka Revenue Inspectors during the period would welcome their review. The problem had thus become more complicated by the time the Government was called upon to reconsider and revise the 1975 Special Rules. A uniform set of principles, acceptable to all, cannot obviously be framed in the midst of conflicting claims. Nor is the court the forum for resolving such conflicts; we are only concerned with the legality of the Rules. A question has been noted this time also as to whether the State is competent to frame rules with retrospective effect from 1-11-1956; and the answer must firmly be in the affirmative, in view of Act 20/ 79. amending the Public Services Act, 1968. In fact, counsel for the petitioners conceded at the hearing that it was impossible to press the point after the amendment. The attack this time is thus principally directed against R.9 prescribing special qualifications for promotion to the U.D. cadre. Arguments were no doubt advanced about the validity of R.4 to 6 also, specifying 'units of appointment', defining 'appointing authority', and preserving the T. C. graduate-non-graduate ratio. It is doubtful whether the graduate-non-graduate ratio can now be successfully challenged; executive orders on the subject were admittedly in existence for years together, long before 1980. An attempt by the present Rules to recognise and preserve them cannot afford a fresh cause of action to the T.C. allottees to question them on their merits The same could be said about R.4 and 5, if they too involve nothing more than an attempt to save what was already there during the relevant period. An attempt by the present Rules to recognise and preserve them cannot afford a fresh cause of action to the T.C. allottees to question them on their merits The same could be said about R.4 and 5, if they too involve nothing more than an attempt to save what was already there during the relevant period. But it is unnecessary to finally pronounce on this aspect because the prescriptions complained of are part of an integrated scheme providing for promotion from the L.D. cadre to the U.D. cadre, based on the special qualifications fixed under R.9; and if R.9 is to be held invalid for any reason, the policy behind R.4 to 6 cannot be independently worked out at least to that extent. 9. Revenue Test is the first qualification fixed, under clause (a) of the Table appended to R.9; and this qualification is made obligatory from 14-1-1963. On behalf of the Kerala recruits it is contended that there was no rule or order at any time requiring them to pass the test as a condition precedent for claiming promotion to the U.D. cadre, and that by importing such a condition in 1980, with retrospective effect from 1963, the rule-making authority is requiring them to perform the impossible. It is also contended that the date fixed is arbitrary and fanciful and that no valid classification could be made on the basis of such an imaginary standard. The State has sought to meet this point by producing Exts. R1 to R3, and by referring to Art.40 of the T.S.R. read with R.4 in Appendix 1A thereto. Reliance is also placed on the observations of this Court in State of Kerala v. Peermohamed ILR (1980) 2 Ker. 31. The attempt is to show that there were binding orders, rules or instructions on the subject all the time, or at least with effect from 14-1-1963. 10. Ext. R1 is an extract from the Travancore Land Revenue Manual, but there is nothing to show that the Manual was made applicable to persons recruited into the services of the Kerala State after 1-11-1956. It is also difficult to identify the different categories of posts mentioned therein with the category of UD. clerks with which we are here concerned. Ext. R2 is an order dated 10-11-1943, and it was obviously applicable only to persons in the services of the former Travancore State. Likewise, Ext. It is also difficult to identify the different categories of posts mentioned therein with the category of UD. clerks with which we are here concerned. Ext. R2 is an order dated 10-11-1943, and it was obviously applicable only to persons in the services of the former Travancore State. Likewise, Ext. R3 is an order dated 23-1-1950, applicable only to TC. personnel. The three documents are insufficient to show that the requirement of Revenue Test was ever extended to the Kerala recruits. R.4 in Appendix 1A to the TSR. had no doubt prescribed certain "tests of a special professional or technical nature", but so far as the Land Revenue Department was concerned. Revenue Test was not one among them. And it seems to us that the reliance placed on Peermohamed's case (supra) is also beside the point. The question in that case was whether the Account Test and the Revenue Test were tests newly prescribed for the Revenue staff by the Special Rules of 1975, for the purposes of R.13A of the K.S.S.R. So far as Account Test was concerned, the Court held that it was there at least from the G.O. dated 14-1-1963 and that it was not a test newly prescribed in 1975, As regards Revenue Test, the Court said: "As far as revenue test is concerned, R.8 of the Special Rules itself contains indication that the revenue tests of Travancore-Cochin and Madras were in existence even prior to the Special Rules. Therefore, these again cannot be regarded as "new tests introduced by the Special Rules." The short question decided was whether in respect of Madras allottees and TC. allottees for whom Revenue Test was admittedly a requisite qualification long before 1-11-1956, the naming of the Test in the 1975 Special Rules could be considered as 'introducing' the test for the first time ("new"); and the Court held that it could not be so considered. The decision did not hold or even indicate that the Revenue Test had at any time been made applicable to the third group i. a Kerala recruits, whether from 14-1-1963 or from any other date. We have therefore to proceed on the basis that the Revenue Test had not been made applicable to the Kerala recruits at any time, and that the date 14-1-1963 (which is really the date on which the unified Account Test was introduced) had no relevance to the classification attempted. We have therefore to proceed on the basis that the Revenue Test had not been made applicable to the Kerala recruits at any time, and that the date 14-1-1963 (which is really the date on which the unified Account Test was introduced) had no relevance to the classification attempted. 11. What then is the effect of a law or rule made in 1980, ordaining that those governed by it should have passed one of the tests prescribed by it for the first time, in 1963? Dealing with the limitations on the exercise of legislative power, C. K. Alien says : "Law in the making"i "It neither requires nor is capable of proof that a statute cannot decree what is physically impossible. Somewhere in the interstices of our statute-book there may be an example of an Act ordering that which, at the time of enactment, was impossible to be performed; it is not difficult to imagine such circumstances, but I do not know of any instance of this antecedent or contemporaneous impossibility. Subsequent impossibility is another matter. A statutory rule may be perfectly reasonable and practicable in its general application, but in a particular instance, owing to inevitable circumstances, it may be impossible to an individual to comply with it. The maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia then applies". In the absence of any evidence to show that there was any rule or order in existence before 1963, requiring the Kerala recruits to pass the Revenue Test as a condition for promotion, it should be taken that Clause (a) of the Table appended to R.9 is now imposing an obligation on them to achieve the impossible; and for that reason, the clause becomes unenforceable. 12. The clause has also to be treated as arbitrary and discriminatory, because the basis of classification rests on a misconception about the significance of the date taken into account. 13. The Madras allottees are also justified in complaining that in so far as the clause ignores the requirement of Revenue Test for them till 14-1-1963 a requirement which was very much there under the Madras Ministerial Service Rules during the period its prescriptions are arbitrary and illegal. A competent law, made expressly retrospective, can take away vested rights; and in that sense, it may be open for the Government to deprive persons of rights secured by them. A competent law, made expressly retrospective, can take away vested rights; and in that sense, it may be open for the Government to deprive persons of rights secured by them. But when the deprivation is arbitrary, the law or the rule leading to such a result will itself be incompetent, as offending Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. In State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Kesav Lal Soni (1983) 2 SCC. 33, the Supreme Court posed the question whether a law "can be made to destroy today's accrued constitutional rights by artificially reverting to a situation which existed 17 years ago", and answered it in the negative. The court said: "The legislature is undoubtedly competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right acquired under existing laws but since the laws are made under a written Constitution, and have to conform to the dos and dont's of the constitution, neither prospective nor retrospective laws can be made so as to contravene fundamental rights. The law must satisfy the requirements of the Constitution today taking into account the accrued or acquired rights of the parties today. The law cannot say, 20 years ago the parties had no rights, therefore, the requirements of the Constitution will be satisfied if the law is dated back by 20 years. We are concerned with today's rights and not yesterday's. A legislature cannot legislate today with reference to a situation that obtained 20 years ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in the course of the 20 years. That would be most arbitrary, unreasonable and a negation of history." The Madras allottees were required to pass the Revenue Test, as a condition precedent for promotion, both before and after 1-11-1956 and many of them had acquired the qualification and obtained promotion in accordance with the Rules then in force. This march of events cannot be ignored, after the lapse of more than 20 years, by attempting to repeal the Madras rules retrospectively and creating a fictional vacuum. This march of events cannot be ignored, after the lapse of more than 20 years, by attempting to repeal the Madras rules retrospectively and creating a fictional vacuum. Alternatively, proceeding on the assumption that the Madras rules stand superseded from 1-11-1956 by virtue of the impugned Rules, the position obtaining is that there were two groups of employees in Kerala service during the period from 1-11-1956 to 14-1-1963: one, which had acquired Revenue Test qualification as it was obligatory to acquire it at that time, and another, which had not acquired it as it was not obligatory for them. Can the law be equally applied to these unequals? Art.14 does not permit application of equal laws to unequals or unequal application of the laws to equals, unless such application can be saved by the theory of valid classification. We have already held that 14-1-1963 is a date arbitrarily chosen without anything to support the rationality of the choice. The attempt by the impugned Rules to treat the Madras allottees as equal to all others in the matter of Revenue Test till 14-1-1963 has to be declared illegal for this reason also. 14. The Secretariat Manual Test and the District Office Manual Test referred to in clause (c) of the Table stands more or less on the same footing as the Revenue Test in clause (a), so far as the Kerala recruits are concerned. There was no rule or order, at least till the issue of G. O. (P) No. 22 dated 14-1-63, requiring these people to pass the test. Though G. O.MS. No. 170 was issued on 20-2-1958 substituting the DOM test for the Secretariat Manual test, that was applicable only to T. C. allottees. And the position therefore is that the Kerala recruits are now being asked to perform the impossible, during the period from 1-11-1956 to 14-1-1963. For the reasons stated in paragraph (11) above, it has to be held that this part of the Rule is also unenforceable. 15. Clause (b) of the Table seeks to enforce Account Test (Lower) as another special qualification retrospectively from 1-1-1964 i.e. the date from which the test prescribed by the G. O. dated 14-1-1963 could be deemed to have been actually introduced for the purposes of R.13A of the K.S.S.R., according to the decisions of this Court. 15. Clause (b) of the Table seeks to enforce Account Test (Lower) as another special qualification retrospectively from 1-1-1964 i.e. the date from which the test prescribed by the G. O. dated 14-1-1963 could be deemed to have been actually introduced for the purposes of R.13A of the K.S.S.R., according to the decisions of this Court. The Madras allottees would contend that the G. O. was issued at a time when the Madras Ministerial Service Rules were in force, that Account Test was not a requirement of the Madras Rules, that an executive order was insufficient to vary the Statutory terms and conditions of their service, and that consequently the GO. should be deemed to have not come into force so far as they are concerned. They also contend that in as much as all orders in existence prior to 15-5-1975 were superseded by the 1975 Special Rules, in their application to the Revenue Department personnel, all such orders should be deemed to have been obliterated, in view of the decision in Vasudevan Nair's case ILR (1979) 2 Ker. 743 which upheld those Special Rules to the extent they had provided for such supersession. There are at least two answers to this contention. The first is the view taken in Peermohammed's case ILR (1980)2 Ker. 31 that: "merely because an executive order under which certain tests were in operation prior to the Special Rules were replaced or obliterated with retrospective effect by the Rules, the factual existence and operation of the tests cannot be regarded as non est." The second is that by the proviso added to R.13 of the KSSR. on 16-6-1977, with effect from 14-1-1963, the test was made applicable to all the ministerial staff employed in the services of the Kerala State, including Madras allottees; the matter no longer rested on executive orders. It cannot therefore be said there was no rule on the subject applicable to the Madras allottees and they are now being asked to perform the impossible. There can however be no doubt that in view of R.13A (K.S.S.R.), all allotted employees would get four years' time from 1-1-1964 to pass the test, and the Kerala recruits, two years. In fact, this position is not seriously disputed by the State. 16. There can however be no doubt that in view of R.13A (K.S.S.R.), all allotted employees would get four years' time from 1-1-1964 to pass the test, and the Kerala recruits, two years. In fact, this position is not seriously disputed by the State. 16. In the year 1966 the Kerala Government had started a Training School at Trivandrum for giving training to new recruits and also for those in service, in various matters relating to Office procedure, principles of public administration, financial and account matters etc. The trainees had to pass an examination conducted by the Public Service Commission; and by G.O. dated 11-7-1966, it was directed that those who came out successful would be exempted from passing Account Test (Lower) and the Office Manual test. It is contended that officers who had completed this test are outside the purview of clause (b), in as much as it recognises only the Account Test eo nominee, and a pass in the Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part I (Madras) as an alternative. There is force in this contention. When a statutory rule specifies a named test as a required qualification and further prescribes what could be treated as an alternative or equivalent qualification, no other qualification can be treated as a substitute. Clause (b) as it now stands therefore excludes the class of officers who had passed the Training course and were eligible, by reason of the G.O. dated 11-7-1966, to be treated as test qualified. To keep out this class alone, overlooking the circumstance that they were being treated as test-qualified all the while on the basis of orders which were valid at the time they were issued, would be arbitrary and discriminatory; and for this reason at least, the validity of clause (b) is open to doubt. 17. In the light of the above discussion. R.9 of the impugned rules has to be struck down as invalid and inoperative. The prescriptions of R.4 to 6 cannot be given effect to, as indicated earlier, if R.9 cannot be saved. R.2, 3, 7 and 8 can probably survive, subject to an objection raised against applying the 'rule of restoration' to clerks who had commenced service.as Village Officers. It is unnecessary to examine these and other objections minutely, because the surviving parts of the Rules cannot operate as an integrated scheme from 1-11-1956, within the meaning of R.1(2). R.2, 3, 7 and 8 can probably survive, subject to an objection raised against applying the 'rule of restoration' to clerks who had commenced service.as Village Officers. It is unnecessary to examine these and other objections minutely, because the surviving parts of the Rules cannot operate as an integrated scheme from 1-11-1956, within the meaning of R.1(2). We are therefore constrained to hold that the impugned Special Rules are inoperative as a whole. 18. That means that the Government will have to undertake once again the exercise of issuing fresh orders or rules on the subject. We are unhappy about this result, and the lot of the Revenue Staff whose conditions of. service remain unsettled even after the lapse of 25 years from the time of States reorganisation. But then the Government alone cannot be blamed for the unfortunate state of affairs, as the judgment in Vasudevan Nair's case ILR, (1979)2 Ker. 743 shows that it was making several efforts to bring the warring groups together in order to find an agreed solution. Lapse of time and the interim arrangements made in the meanwhile, judicial insistence on constitutional and legal standards, the imperfections of the unit system and the need to combine it with another dispensation for some time, and other historical factors have all been aggravating the problem. Still, it is for the Government or the rule-making authority to find a solution. All that we can do for the present, as had been done on earlier occasions, is to direct that till fresh rules or orders are issued, further promotions to posts of Deputy Tahsildars and Tahsildars will be made only on a provisional basis and that the claims of the petitioners and others similarly situated should be considered on the basis of seniority in the category of L. D. clerks. As the Special Rules have been held to be inoperative, seniority lists prepared, and promotions and reversions ordered on their basis have to be kept in abeyance; and in cases where promotions and reversions have already taken effect, they will have to be reviewed by applying the same principle.as expeditiously as possible. We direct accordingly. 19. As the Special Rules have been held to be inoperative, seniority lists prepared, and promotions and reversions ordered on their basis have to be kept in abeyance; and in cases where promotions and reversions have already taken effect, they will have to be reviewed by applying the same principle.as expeditiously as possible. We direct accordingly. 19. In some of the petitions, there are also attacks against the validity of the Kerala Revenue Subordinate Service Special Rules, 1980 applicable to the category of Deputy Tahsildars, and the manner in which seniority in the lower cadre or cadres has to be reckoned for the purposes of appointment by transfer. We are leaving open all those questions because regular appointments to cadre of Deputy Tahsildars can be made only when the position of the claimants in the feeder categories are finally settled. 20. It is also necessary to make it clear that all questions which have not been specifically dealt with herein, and arising in the large number of writ petitions now being considered, are also left open. Disposed of as above. No costs.