JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava, J. - These three connected writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner asserting right to the post of Collection Naib Fahsi'dar, claiming benefit of Rule 39 (3) of the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tahsildar) Rules, 1944 viz, exemption challenging his reversion to his substantive post of Collection Amin. The petitioner who was only Junior High School was appointed as Collection Amin in 1953 and was confirmed as such with effect from 1-4-60. He was posted as Collection Naib Tahsildar number of times though for about twelve years viz , from 1963 to 1970 he did not get any opportunity to the post of Naib Tahsildar. The period during which the petitioner was posted as Collection Naib Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar by the District Magistrate are as follows : 11-2-1960 to 31-8-1960 1-3-1960 to 31-3-1961 3-3-1962 to 31-3-1962 1-7-1962 to 10-6-1963 18-1-1975 to 13-8-1975 21-7-1979 to 24-3-1980 17-1-1980 to ---------------- 2. The petitioners assertion that it is because of seniority and merits that he was appointed as Collection Naib Tahsildar, have not been denied though the averment that he was appointed as 'officiating Collection Naib Tahsildar has been denied. A perusal of the dates during which the petitioner was appointed as Collection Naib Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar indicates season or period in a year. It may have been earlier in newly created post for a particular period or in place of some one for post already created for any duration. As the petitioner was working as Collection Naib Tahsildar he claimed benefit of Rule 39 (3) of the Service Rules and represented his case to the Board of Revenue as well as State Government. On the representation as referred to above the Secretary Board of Revenue made an enquiry from the Collection who reported that the petitioner was working as Officiating Collection Naib Tahsildar on 14-11-1982 and his record of service was excellent and he named few other Naib Tahsildars who according to him ware junior to the petitioner. The Revenue Secretary endorsed the same to the petitioner and the Revenue Minister approved it on 5-7-1981 and no that after consulting Public Service Commission he may be exempted from educational qualification. The Revenue Secretary endorsed the same to the petitioner and the Revenue Minister approved it on 5-7-1981 and no that after consulting Public Service Commission he may be exempted from educational qualification. The State Government viewed that non-regularisation of the petitioner as Naib Tahsildar was not just the special Secretary to the Government, vide letter dated 1-8-1981 communicated this to the Secretary Public Service Commission asking him for regularisation of petitioner giving him benefit of Rule 39 (3) and for approved of it by the Public Service Commission without delay and thereafter informing the Government of the same. In the said letter reference to the cases of other officiating Collection Naib Tahsildar who were given benefit of Rule 39 (3) on the ground that they were officiating as Collection Naib Tahsildars on 14-11-1962 and whose services were regularised by Government in consultation with Commission was made Reference to the filing of writ petition by those who were not given benefit of Rule 39 (3) in which they were held entitled to it and were consequently given benefit of said rule was also made. Alongwith the letter the petitioners character roll was also seen Again by letter dated 15-10-1981 the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department asked the Board of Revenue to issue necessary orders to the Collector, Shah-jahanpur for promotion of the petitioner as Naib Tahsildar in local arrangement as the matter for his regularisation was pending consideration In the said letter it was also mentioned that the G O. dated 16-11-1979 by which the petitioners request for exemption was rejected was being cancelled. This, it seems, was done in view of exemption granted to the petitioner at the Ministers level referred to above. In pursuance of the same. Collector Shahjahanpur, promoted the petitioner again to the post of Naib Tahsildar and ordered for reversion of one Mathura Prasad whose name found place at the bottom in the seniority list of Collection Amins. This, it seems, was done in view of exemption granted to the petitioner at the Ministers level referred to above. In pursuance of the same. Collector Shahjahanpur, promoted the petitioner again to the post of Naib Tahsildar and ordered for reversion of one Mathura Prasad whose name found place at the bottom in the seniority list of Collection Amins. The petitioner took over charge in pursuance of appointment letter dated 16-11-1981 which led the said Mathura Prasad to file a writ petition in which an interim order directing the State Government and the Collector to continue to pay him the salary for the post in which he was working As a result of this order, an order dated 17-4-1982 reverting the petitioner was passed which led him to file writ petition No. 1858 of 1982 which was admitted and an interim order staying the operation of the said reversion order was passed. Subsequently, two writ petitions by other Collection Amins were filed and all the petitioners including one filed earlier by one Uttam Kumar wes directed to be listed together. An order directing continuance of the petitioner as Naib Tahsildar till next listing was passed and it was left open to the authorities to revert the junior most in order to accommodate the petitioner. On the basis of interim orders confirmed subsequently the petitioner vide order dated 25-11-1983 was reverted to the post of Collection Amin. This led the petitioner to file writ petition No. 6869 of 1983 claiming himself to be senior most amongst the Amins An interim order staying the operation of the said order was passed on 26-12-1983 and it was directed that the petitioner would be entitled to draw his salary as Naib Tahsildar. In the said writ petition the petitioner gave the names of the Collection Amins who were given benefit of Rule 39 (3) and of the writ petition as a result of which few more got benefit of the said rule resulting in similar benefit to few more Collection Amins. One Uttam Kumar who had earlier filed a writ petition as a result of rearrangement was reverted which led him to file another writ petition. One Uttam Kumar who had earlier filed a writ petition as a result of rearrangement was reverted which led him to file another writ petition. In the said writ petition a reference to confidential letter of the Government mentioning Rule 39 (3) was considered therein that the petitioners matter regarding benefit of Rule 39 (3) was considered by State Government and was rejected was made. In Uttam Kumars writ petition an order for maintaining status quo was passed. The petitioner therefore,filed the third writ petition viz , writ petition No. 491 of 1973 challenging his case for regularisation which was passed behind his back without giving him any opportunity of hearing which was dismissed as not pressed. It writ petition No. 124 of 1984 filed by Uttam Kumar this Court passed an order directing the authorities to pass proper order for making officiating and temporary appointments in accordance with Rule 28 read with Rules 5,7 and 17 of the Service Rules, and the interim orders passed in all the pending petitions thus stood modified The Collector, Shahjahanpur thereafter passed a detailed order and held that petitioner was not eligible for promotion under Rule 28 as he did not fulfil the requisite educational qualifications and condition for promotion as officiating and temporary Naib Tahsildar By order dated 1-10-1984 the petitioner was ordered to be reverted to the post of Collection Amin whereafter he filed writ petition No. 4919 of 1984. The petitioner in this petition has claimed benefit of Rule 39 (3) which was extended to various Amin as a result of writ petition filed by them or otherwise by the Government also without there being any order in a favour of such persons by any court of law, 3. From the facts stated by the parties, the position which emerges out is that the State Government sanctioned a scheme of integration for collection of various Government dues like land revenue, taqavi etc. and a circular in this behalf was issued by the Land Reforms Commissioner in which a provision for sanction of extra staff was also made. In the exigencies of the situation the District Officers were asked to make necessary appointments. These appointments could have been made only for a particular season. Although the works. and a circular in this behalf was issued by the Land Reforms Commissioner in which a provision for sanction of extra staff was also made. In the exigencies of the situation the District Officers were asked to make necessary appointments. These appointments could have been made only for a particular season. Although the works. Seasonal Collection Naib Tahsildar, it seems was used in the said circular or finds place in the statutory rules these appointees ware not placed within the purview of Public Service Commission. These Collection Naib Tahsildars were appointed also from amongst the Collection Amins and Supervisor Kanoongos. Those who were appointed or promoted from the Collection Amins and Supervisor Kanoongos, were designated as unapproved Collection Naib Tahsildar Cases of such Collection Naib Tahsildars we referred to the Public Service Commission for approval and it is said that they were subsequently approved and were later on promoted, and the names of such persons have been mentioned by the petitioner Under G O. No. 2805 (VI) 1D-1263-D/59 dated November 15, 1962 the State Government decided to merge the cadre of Revenue Naib Tahsildars and Collection Naib Tahsildar with effect from 15-11-62. After merger of these cadre new Rule 39 was added to the Naib Tahsildars Rules for regularisation of the cases of temporary and permanent Collection Naib Tahsildars and Rule 39 (3) for regulation of those who were working as Collection Naib Tahsildar in the officiating capacity or for temporary post. According to the petitioner although similar cases of Chandrama Prasad, Kailash Misra, Rajmani Peuday, Nazim Ali etc. for regularisation to the post of Naib Tahsildar were referred to the Public Services Commission but his case even though he too was an unapproved Naib Tahsildar was not referred, may it be under some mistake. Some unapproved Collection Naib Tahsildars who were not allowed benefit of Rule 39 (3) and were reverted to their substantive post of Collection Amin challenged their reversion order which was ultimately allowed and they were allowed to continue on the post of Naib Tahsildar and all of them are still continuing such. The petitioner has given details of such writ petitions. On the behalf of the State so far as these persons are concerned, it has been placed that these persons were working as Collection Naib Tahsildar in officiating or temporary capacity still the petitioner was only working as seasonal Collection Naib Tahsildar on 14-11-1962. The petitioner has given details of such writ petitions. On the behalf of the State so far as these persons are concerned, it has been placed that these persons were working as Collection Naib Tahsildar in officiating or temporary capacity still the petitioner was only working as seasonal Collection Naib Tahsildar on 14-11-1962. No document whatsoever on behalf of the State has been placed on the record which may indicate that any designation like seasonal Collection Naib Tahsildar was provided for in any Government Order or it was given to anyone. Under Rules also though there is reference to Nazul Naib Tahsildar, there is no reference to Collection Naib Tahsildar, which indicates that it is Naib Tahsildar (Collection). Rule 39 (3) which was subsequently added by the amending Act, reads as follows : "39. Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these rules - (1) all the permanent and temporary posts of Collection Naib Tahsildar existing as on November 14, 1962, shall, with effect from November 15, 1962, be deemed to have been redesignated as 'Naib Tahsildar and added to the permanent and temporary cadres respectively of the service (2) All persons who were serving as Collection Naib Tahsildar in the State on No vernier 14, 1962, in a substantive capacity, shall be deemed to have been appointed as members of the Service, as defined in clause (g) of Rule 3 ; (3) persons who were serving as Collection Naib Tahsildar in the State on November 14, 1962 in an officiating capacity or in temporary posts, shall be deemed to have been as Naib Tahsildars in officiating or temporary with the rules and shall be eligible for appointment as members of the service, in consultation with the Commission ; and (4) The Governor may direct that the said rules or any individual rule thereof shall not apply with such modification as he may specify, to the persons mentioned in sub-rules (2) and (3) in respect of their recruitment on appointment to the service and other conditions of service relating thereto." 4. By virtue of the said Section the Collection Naib Tahsildars, a designation which did not find place in Service Rules were to be deemed as Naib Tahsildars in permanent or temporary vacancies as the case may be for becoming members of service. The Collection Naib Tahsildar who were serving in substantive capacity by the deeming clause become members of the service. The Collection Naib Tahsildar who were serving in substantive capacity by the deeming clause become members of the service. The Collection Naib Tahsildars who were working on 14-11-1962 in officiating capacity or in temporary post were to be deemed to be Naib Tahsildars in officiating or temporary vacancies in accordance with rules and became eligible for appointment as members of the service in consultation with the Commission Sub section (4) provides that the Governor may direct that the said Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Tahsildars) Rules, 1944 or any individual rule shall not apply to the persons mentioned in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 39 in respect of their recruitment on appointment to the Service. Rule 39 (4) thus empowered the State Government to relax any rule for recruitment of a person to the service and other conditions relating to it. Under the Service Rules as it extended prior to amendment in 1973 no educational qualifications for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar from lower cadre was provided tuougii mi limurn qualification for direct appointment was provided The mini-mum-qualification for direct recruitment was Intermediate Under Rule S prior to its amendment vide notification dated 31-8-1973 promotions could have been made from amongst the Supervision Kanoongo Partition Inspector and by selection of Kanoongo diplomate Rule 5 of the amended Rules in which certain changes were effected by the said amendment reads as follows : "5. Source of recruitment . - Recruitment to the Service shall be made - (i) on the result of a competitive examination to be conducted by the Commission. (ii) by promotion from amongst Supervision Kanoongo ; (iii) by selection of a Kanoongo diplomate ; (iv) by promotion from amongst such Collection Amins who have passed at least the Intermediate Examination of the board of High School and Intermediate Educations, Uttar Pradesh or an examination recognised by the U. P. Government as equivalent thereto " 5. Amending 1973 Rules, thus, specifically may approve for a promotion from amongst the Collection Amins who fulfil requisite qualification but the Government was also empowered to relax the said Rules for any person in view of Rule 39 (4). Thus, power even otherwise is still, in fact, in the Government in view of the Government Notification of the year 1931 which was issued under Section 2 5 of the Government of India Act which Notification still holds good. 6. Thus, power even otherwise is still, in fact, in the Government in view of the Government Notification of the year 1931 which was issued under Section 2 5 of the Government of India Act which Notification still holds good. 6. Rule 17 provides for the procedure for recruitment by promotion, and the same reads as follows : "17. Procedure for recruitment by promotion. For purposes of recruitment to the service under Rules 5 (ii) and 5 (iv) selection shall be made strictly on merit from amongst permanent Supervisor Kanoongos and Collection Amins who have put in not less than seven years service in the aggregate in a substantive and/or officiating capacity on the parent post on the first day of January of the year in which the selection is made. The procedure of selection shall such as may be prescribed by the Governor from time to time." 7. Rule 28 provides for the officiating and temporary appointments-Amendment of 1973 has practically effected no change in the said rule as it existed then. Rule 28 reads as follows : "28. Officiating and Temporary Appointments - (1) Temporary vacancies not likely to last for more than six weeks may be filled by the District Officer by appointment of a listed candidate if available in the district, but if no such candidate is available, the most suitable official available may be appointed. (2) Vacancies lasting for more than six weeks but not more than three months shall be filled by the District Officer by the appointment of a listed candidate, if one is available, in the District. If no such candidate is available, a report shall be made to the Commissioner who shall if possible, appointed a listed candidate from some other district of the division. If no listed candidate is available in the division, the Commissioner shall appoint, or authorise the District Officer to appoint, the most suitable official available. (3) All vacancies, lasting for more than three months shall, on the report of the Commissioner, be filled by the Board." 8. Rule 28, thus makes it clear that the District Officer is empowered to fill any temporary vacancies which are not to last for more than six weeks from amongst the listed candidate and if none is available, the most suitable official available may be appointed. Rule 28, thus makes it clear that the District Officer is empowered to fill any temporary vacancies which are not to last for more than six weeks from amongst the listed candidate and if none is available, the most suitable official available may be appointed. Admittedly the petitioners earlier appointment as Collection Naib Tahsildar which has been pleaded on behalf of the State Government to be seasonal was under Rule 28. Even if the appointment was for a particular season then it was against the vacancies which were created for that period. These vacancies were only temporary vacancies. There could not have been any vacancy unless the post itself was created for a specified period may it be for one particular season. Temporary vacancies may also come into existence because of resignation retirement or death of a person holding of the petitioners appointment having admittedly been made against a temporary vacancy, he was working as Collection Naib Tahsildar on a temporary vacancy having been appointed as such by the District Magistrate. The petitioners appointment as Collection Naib Tahsildar in the year 1960-61 and 1962 was not for more than six weeks. But in 1962 to 63 he continued to work as such for about one year It is not known whether the same was with the sanction of any higher authority or not. After amendment of the rules the petitioner again was promoted as Collection Naib Tahsildar in 1975 for about 7 months and in 1979-80 for about 8 months year 1980 on which post he continued for long that is till actual re-exercise on behalf of the State it has been contended that Rule 39 (3) provides for appointment in officiating capacity or temporary post included in the cadre. It appears that no direct recruitment to the post UPLBEC - 185 of Collection Naib Tahsildar from Public Service Commission was made prior to the year 19&9. Before it certain Collection Naib Tahsildars were directly appointed by the Collections, which were later on approved by the Public Service Commission on reference made by the Land Reforms Commissioner. The temporary post of Collection Naib Tahsildars so created obviously were ex-cadre post. But Rule 39 (3) covers ex cadre post also no distinction between cadre or ex-cadre post has been made in this behalf. Appointment in a cadre post is also made in officiating capacity. The temporary post of Collection Naib Tahsildars so created obviously were ex-cadre post. But Rule 39 (3) covers ex cadre post also no distinction between cadre or ex-cadre post has been made in this behalf. Appointment in a cadre post is also made in officiating capacity. So far as temporary posts are concerned it was open for the Governor to increase the strength of cadre by creating additional permanent or temporary posts from to time time, if these temporary posts continued and later became permanent, the benefit of Rule 39 (2) became available to such persons. Rule 39 (2) covers cases of Collection Naib Tahsildar who ware working in substantive capacity. The benefit of Rule 39 (3) for those who ware not working in substantive capacity. Nonsubstantive capacity also includes appointment on the post temporary created, may it be for a specific period. It appears that by Rule 39 (3) it was intended to confer benefit on all such Collection Naib Tahsildar who were acting as such on 14-11-1962 which appointment was obviously not relatable to any educational qualification. Under the rule they only have been made eligible for being promoted as Naib Tahsildar provided they are approved by the Public Service Commission. So far as exemption from educational qualifications is concerned that power vests in the State Government and without that exemption no-one could be appointed as a member of the service. From the facts it is clear that the State Government took a decision on 5-7-1981 to give exemption to the petitioner from educational qualifications and sent the same to the Public Service Commission. The Board of Revenue was asked to issue necessary orders to the Collector of Shahjahanpur for promotion of the petitioner as Naib Tahsildar in local arrangement which was complied with and subsequently as a result of the order so passed after other writ petitions were filed, the petitioner was order to be reverted which was challenged by him of means of a writ petition in which an interim order was granted It seems that subsequently in view of the Vigilance Enquiry and its report and the consequential action departmental proceedings to be taken, the State Government took the view that he should not have been promoted (though it was because of the Government letter he was promoted). The State Government desired for expeditious action by the Department to get the interim order vacated. The State Government desired for expeditious action by the Department to get the interim order vacated. From the said confidential letter it also appears that the State Government, rejected the petitioners case for regularisation The same too has been challenged by the petitioners in the last writ petition. But it seems that the State Government has not recalled back its order giving the petitioners exemption from the educational qualifications, as no reference to the same, has been made in the said confidential letter dated 19-9-1983 copy of which has been placed on writ petition No. 4919 of 1984 as Annexures No. 7. 9. The District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in his impugned order dated 13ih January, 1984 has made reference to some order dated 8-2-1980 which the Board refused to grant exemption from educational qualification to the petitioner and his name was thereafter deleted from the seniority list. Prior to it the State Government had refused to grant exemption from educational qualification to the petitioner when a reference was made to it by the Board of Revenue which is evident from State Governments letter to the Board of Revenue dated 16-11-1979 a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure No. 4. No reference to such an order has been made in the writ petition or counter affidavit or any other document filed along with it. it is not know in which context or terms the said order if any was passed. Even if there was any such order it stood superseded by the subsequent decision of the State Government dated 5-7-1981, a reference to which does not II place in the District Magistrates order dated 13-1-1984, which is subject matter of challenge in one of these writ petitions. No reference to the same also finds place in the letter of Secretary Board of Revenue dated IInd February, 1985 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. C-2 to the supplementary affidavit. The Board it seems, also did not act upon any decision dated 8-2-1980. No reference to the same also finds place in the letter of Secretary Board of Revenue dated IInd February, 1985 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. C-2 to the supplementary affidavit. The Board it seems, also did not act upon any decision dated 8-2-1980. The question whether the petitioner could be appointed as a member of service is a peferable to the Public Service Commission despite the fact that exemption from educational qualifications has been granted by the State Government The Public Service Commission did not accept the proposal made by the State Government for regularising the petitioner to the post of Naib Tahsildar as he was not even High School, a criteria which seems to have been fixed by the Board itself for regularising others and also because he was not officiating Naib Tahsildar at the relevant period of time This is contained in Commissioners letter dated 20th April, 1982 a copy of which has been annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit as Annexure No. C-l It was in reply to the State Governments letter dated 1-8-1981 decision to exempt the petitioner from educational qualifications It appears that the Board only considered one part of Rule 39 (3) which confers status of Naib Tahsildar on those Collection Amins who were working as such on 1-4-1982 on officiating basis or on temporary post The Board apparently did not consider whether the petitioner was acting as Collection Naib Tahsildar on a temporary post on that date. Although there is no statutory requirement of a candidate being High School but it seems that Public Service Commission desoite relaxation in educational qualification by Government decided not to regularise those who were not High School for the post of Naib Tahsildar. Apparently, in its view it should have ten the minimum requirement. It is not known whether the experience of working gained by the petitioner was also considered by the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission can still consider whether the petitioner was working as Collection Naib Tahsildar on 11-11-1962, on a temporary post and being sufficiently experienced is otherwise fit to be regularised. The State Government can still refer his case on these grounds. The Public Service Commission can still consider whether the petitioner was working as Collection Naib Tahsildar on 11-11-1962, on a temporary post and being sufficiently experienced is otherwise fit to be regularised. The State Government can still refer his case on these grounds. But as the petitioner has not yet been regularised and Public Service Commission has not approved him for promotion he cannot claim seniority or right to the post of Naib Tahsildar in preference to others So long as the petitioner is not regularised or considered fit by the Public Service Commission which had already taken a decision once and there may be certain shortcomings in it, the petitioner cannot claim any right to the post and defend his reversion. 10. In this view ne is not entitled to any relief in the present set of circumstances and the writ petition filed by him are liable to be dismissed with the observation made above regarding the consideration of the case of the petitioner again the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs in the circumstances of the case.