Judgment :- 1. The five petitioners are employees of the Cochin Davaswom Board. They joined the service of the Cochin Devaswom Board as lower division clerks in 1968,1964,1967,1961 and 1964 respectively, and were, thereafter, promoted, on acquisition of the prescribed test qualifications, as UD clerks with effect from 1973,1974,1975,1978 and 1977 respectively. Their seniors belonging to Scheduled Castes/Tribes had been superceded for promotion since they were not test qualified, inspite of the fact that the Government had issued G.O.MS. 22/PD dated 13-1-1972 exempting employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from passing obligatory departmental tests. The Board realised its mistake in not giving the benefit of this exemption to senior employees of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes; and consequently promoted them in accordance with seniority by Exts. P2 and P3 orders continuing the benefit for one promotion only. It was ordered that the question of granting the benefit in the matter of further promotions would be considered after obtaining clarifications from the Government. That clarification is yet to come. But the Government seems to have taken the view in one order Ext. P4 that the benefit of exemption is available only for one promotion. The Board however passed Ext. P6 order without obtaining any clarification from Government that the benefit of exemption from test qualification with effect from 13-1-1972 should enure in favour of Scheduled Caste/Tribe employees for all promotions and consequently ordered review of all promotions, which had been provisionally made since then. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Ext P6 order is illegal for the reasons, (a) that it was the result of a misunderstanding of the provisions regarding special treatment to employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (b) that the provisions of the K.S. & S.S.R. were not applicable to the Devaswom Board employees and R.13AA thereof could not have been applied to them, (c) that even Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe employees are entitled only for reservation in the matter of appointment and not exemption from qualification impairing quality of and efficiency in public service and (d) that in any case, the preference to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be so excessive or arbitrary as to convert it into discrimination in reverse. 3. 3. Petitioners submit that the employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were preferred not only in the matter of first promotion but also in the matter of further promotion for the entire period from 1972-1984. It is admitted that test qualifications are necessary only in the initial promotion category. If once, for the purpose of promotion to that category, seniority alone is taken into account irrespective of test qualifications, thereafter, further promotions can be made only according to seniority. Juniors like the petitioners obtained promotions to higher categories only because they were preferred to the SC. and ST. employees, who were seniors in the lower division but had no test qualifications. Had the exemption from test qualifications been given effect to when the vacancies arose, the senior Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates alone would have been promoted as U.D. clerks Once they were so promoted, they would naturally have secured further promotions, since for obtaining such promotions, no other test qualifications were prescribed. The entitlement for promotion depended entirely on seniority alone. The fact that what should have been was not done in time does not preclude the Devaswom Board from giving the senior employees their due at a later stage with retrospective effect. I do not find any substance in the complaint that the exemption enabled the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe employees only to one promotion and the review of all promotion is therefore arbitrary and discriminatory. Even otherwise, Ext. P1 obviously applied wherever test qualifications were prescribed. 4. Even assuming that R.13AA of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules do not apply to the employees of the Cochin Devaswom Board, the application of the provisions for exemption to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe employees of the Board is fully justified. Art.335 of the Constitution provides that claims of the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration in making appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. Art.46 of the Constitution enjoins upon the State, an obligation to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The orders Exts. PI and P6 are quite easily capable of being justified in terms of the above constitutional provisions. 5. Art.46 of the Constitution enjoins upon the State, an obligation to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The orders Exts. PI and P6 are quite easily capable of being justified in terms of the above constitutional provisions. 5. The submission that preferment in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is discrimination in reverse cannot be accepted. No attempt has been made by the petitioners to make out this suggestion with reference to the number of employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the services of the Cochin Devaswom Board and the total number of employees in the various categories in the service of the Board to prove the case of "Discrimination in reverse". What is meant by discrimination in reverse is obviously that the underprivileged get excessive doses of undue and undeserving preferences so as to make them more privileged than the erstwhile privileged classes. This cannot be a matter of mere indignant assertion, but should be a matter of proof. 6. The petitioners have approached this Court apparently with an impression that the preferment in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as embodied in the Constitution is a matter of condescension. The provisions in Art.14,16, 39, 46 and 335 etc. of the Constitution are meant to recognise the right of citizens belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for equal justice and to bring them on a par with the other communities. As long as we retain this attitude of condescension to the lowly, their sensibilities are likely to be offended creating explosive resentment rather than meek submissiveness. What the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were assured in the Constitution are retribution for the sins of history and they justifiably feel proud in extracting these assurances as a matter of right and not as concessions from anybody. 7. The consequence of Ext. P6 order is likely to be the promotion of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are at present working in subordinate categories to replace persons like the petitioners, who were promoted earlier because of test qualifications. The fact that persons like the petitioners were provisionally promoted earlier overlooking Ext. 7. The consequence of Ext. P6 order is likely to be the promotion of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are at present working in subordinate categories to replace persons like the petitioners, who were promoted earlier because of test qualifications. The fact that persons like the petitioners were provisionally promoted earlier overlooking Ext. P1 order and overlooking the claims of the senior employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes does not entitle them to claim preferment on that basis. They knew that they had to surrender the benefits of promotion to the senior Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe employees in whose favour Ext. P1 order had already been passed and who should therefore have been promoted earlier. The provisional promotions which the petitioners secured were only in the nature of a windfall, a fortuitous gift. They had no right to cling on to the benefits of such fortuitous promotions, nor are they entitled to complain of any violation of their rights if some of them are to be deprived of the benefits of such provisional promotions. Even then, Ext. P6 contains the assurance that the salary drawn by them on the basis of earlier fortuitous promotions need not be refunded, nor their existing salary reduced even if they are to be reverted. The petitioners cannot expect a better bargain. They may perhaps have got more than what is their due and cannot ask for anything more. In this view of the matter the original petition has only to be dismissed and I do so.