JUDGMENT K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. 37 connected cases were posted for hearing as involving the consideration of common questions in the matter of selection and promotion of Excise Inspectors. Out of them, it was agreed at the Bar that item Nos. 23, 24 and 31, O. P. Nos. 9257 of 1984, 9227 of 1984 and 9393 of 1984 will not be covered by the common questions posed for consideration in O.P. 5733 of 1985 and other cases. So, the Judgment in these group of cases will not cover those original petitions. So also, it was submitted that item No. 30, O.P. No. 7793 of 1984 and item No. 21, O.P. 9036 of 1984 involves other questions and on that basis those two cases are also deleted. So, this Judgment will cover only the balance 32 cases in the list. A common counter-affidavit has been filed in O.P. No. 5733 of 1985. There was a prayer to accept the counter-affidavit in O.P. 5733 of 1985 dated 31st January 1986 as the counter-affidavit in all the other cases. That was granted. 2. Both sides agreed that O.P. 5733 of 1985 can be taken up as a representative case and if the controversy therein is adjudicated, the said decision shall govern the entire batch of 32 cases. On the basis of this representation, we took up O. P. 5733 of 1985 and heard counsel. We heard counsel for the petitioners in O. P. 5733 of 1985, Mr. M. M. Cherian as also counsel for the respondents, the learned Government Pleader, Mr. Cyriac Joseph, who appeared for the State and the Board of Revenue, Mr.O.V. Radhakrishnan, Advocate who supported the Government Pleader on many issues and Mr. T.P. Kelu Nambiar who appeared for respondents 4 and 5 in O. P. Nos. 9797 of 1985, 2240 of 1979 and 947 of 1980. We also heard Mr. Pirappancode V. Sreedharan Nair who appeared for the petitioners in some of the original petitions and M/s Chandrasekharan and Chandrasekhara Menon who appeared for some other petitioners in the original petitions. They largely supported the arguments of Shri M. M. Cherian, Advocate. Coming to the facts in O. P. 5733 of 1985, there are 5 petitioners in this original petition. They are Preventive Officers in the Excise Department. They state that they are qualified for promotion to the next higher category of Excise Inspectors having passed all obligatory tests. They largely supported the arguments of Shri M. M. Cherian, Advocate. Coming to the facts in O. P. 5733 of 1985, there are 5 petitioners in this original petition. They are Preventive Officers in the Excise Department. They state that they are qualified for promotion to the next higher category of Excise Inspectors having passed all obligatory tests. The prayer in the original petition is to quash Ext. P-6 proceedings of the Board of Revenue dated 14th May 1985 and to implement Ext. P-2 and Ext. P-3 judgments of this Court rendered in. O. P. 7103 of 1984 and O. P. Nos. 6730 of 1984 and 7988 of 1984 respectively. They also pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus to promote the qualified persons with effect, from 13th May 1984 when the vacancies arose, as a result of the reversion of unqualified Excise Inspectors. They have prayed for reverting all unqualified Excise Inspectors provisionally promoted prior to 14th May 1982 or after that date. The Special Rules for the Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service was published by G. O. (P) 112/74/TD, dated 9th September 1974, in the Kerala Gazette dated 24th September 1974, S. R. O. No. 689/74. We are concerned herewith the appointment of Excise Inspectors. Clause 2 deals with the appointment to the various categories of posts. For the purpose of resolving the controversy in these original petitions, it is sufficient to state that the method of appointment to the category of Excise Inspectors is either by "direct recruitment or promotion from category (2) (Excise Preventive Officers)". Clause 5 contained the qualifications for the post. Clause 6 provided, that every person appointed to the post of Excise Inspector either by direct recruitment or by transfer or promotion shall pass two tests: (1) Account Test (Lower) and (2) Excise Tests Parts A and B. It is common ground that the post of Excise Inspector was a selection post at all material times. Clause 6 provided, that every person appointed to the post of Excise Inspector either by direct recruitment or by transfer or promotion shall pass two tests: (1) Account Test (Lower) and (2) Excise Tests Parts A and B. It is common ground that the post of Excise Inspector was a selection post at all material times. By G. O. (Ms.) 62/77/TD, dated 10th June 1977, published in Kerala Gazette dated 28th June 1977, Note 2 was inserted in rule 2 to the effect that "for the purpose of appointments by promotion and by transfer the category of Excise Inspectors shall be a selection category." The Explanatory Note to Notification, G.O. (Ms.) 62/77/TD, dated 10th June 1977 stated that "the post of Excise Inspector was a selection post prior to the issue of the Special Rules, but this aspect was overlooked when the Special Rules were issued. Since it is necessary to confine the post of Excise Inspector as a selection post, the Notification was being issued." By G. O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 published in Kerala Gazette dated 6th July 1982, clause 6 of the Special Rules originally published on 9th September 1974 specifying the tests, was amended. The notification dated 14th May 1982 specified an additional test, by clause (2) of the amendment effected. By G. O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982, clause 6 (1) in column (2) and clause 6 (2) in column (2) were amended to include for both direct recruits and promotees, a pass in an additional test, namely, District Office Manual or Manual of Office Procedure. The Note to the said amendment provided that two years or four chances shall be given to the Officers to pass the Departmental Tests, that is, Manual of Office Procedure or District Office Manual from the date of the orders (14th May 1982). The Explanatory Note to the amendment dated 14th May 1982 made it clear, that, it is to make the Excise Personnel to acquire experience in office work and to make them proficient therein, the additional test was prescribed. The petitioners state that the two years period fixed by G. O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 expired on 14th May 1984 and four chances were, also given by or before 8th May 1984. The petitioners state that the two years period fixed by G. O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 expired on 14th May 1984 and four chances were, also given by or before 8th May 1984. It is their further case that from 9th September 1974, the Departmental Promotion Committee never met for selection of Excise Inspectors (officers) and all promotions were made only provisionally. By Ext. P-1 order of Government dated 24th October 1984, the Board of Revenue was informed that in view of G.O. (P) 36/82/TD dated 14th May 1982, the period for passing the tests expired on 13th May 1984 and persons who did not pass the tests within the above period should be reverted, except those who are eligible for general exemption as per General Rule 13B. Rejecting the proposal of the Board to grant extension of time for one year from 13th May 1984, for passing the tests, the Government also rejected the request of Mr. V. M. George and others in that regard. Mr. V. M. George and others filed O. P. 7103 of 1984 and assailed G. O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 and prayed for the issue of writ of mandamus to compel the State to permit the petitioners to continue in the post of Excise Inspectors and for further reliefs. Sivaraman Nair, J. by Judgment dated 5th November 1984 held that the rights of the petitioners therein are to be regulated by the terms of their promotions which admittedly were only provisional promotions and also subject to an obligation to give place to qualified candidates. Since the provisional promotions were not regularised, the petitioners were disentitled to any relief and dismissed the original petition. This decision was affirmed in Writ Appeal 16 of 1985. Subsequently, one G. Raveendran Pillay and C. R. Jose and others filed O.P. 6730 of 1984 and 7988 of 1984 and complained that even after the period of exemption provided by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982, unqualified persons are allowed to continue as Excise Inspectors on provisional basis, preventing the chances of the petitioners who were fully qualified for promotion to the higher category and in effect a writ of mandamus was prayed for, to enforce Ext. P-1 order of the Government dated 24th October 1984. Balakrishna Menon, J. by Judgment dated 7th February1985 directed implementation of the Government order dated 24th October 1984, Ext. P-1 order of the Government dated 24th October 1984. Balakrishna Menon, J. by Judgment dated 7th February1985 directed implementation of the Government order dated 24th October 1984, Ext. P-1, in this case (Ext. P-9 in the said O. P. ). The Government took up the matter in Writ Appeal 209 of 1985, feeling aggrieved by the judgment in O.P. 7988 of 1984. In the Writ Appeal memorandum in paragraph 2, it was contended by the State as follows: "The learned Single Judge while holding that requirement of rule 13A (2) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules is mandatory and those who have failed to secure the obligatory test qualification during the period of exemption while holding the post of Excise Inspectors on a provisional basis are liable to be reverted as Preventive Officers failed to take into consideration whether the Excise Preventive Officers who were promoted as the Excise Inspectors prior to the coming into force of Ext.P-1 notification that are also liable to be reverted. It is submitted that the Preventive Officers who were promoted prior to coming into force of Ext. P-1 Notification dated 14th May 1982 and who have not acquired the qualifications prescribed by the said Notification within the period of exemption are not liable to be reverted in terms of rule 13A (2) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. This important aspect of the matter was lost sight of by the Single Judge in the judgment under challenge." Writ Appeal 209 of 1985 was dismissed by a Division Bench by Judgment dated 12th April 1985. Even then, by Ext. P-6 proceedings, dated 14th May 1985 the Board of Revenue held that the test was introduced on 14th May 1982, and those persons who were otherwise qualified and who were promoted before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the introduction of the test and they do not have to be reverted. But those persons who were promoted after 14th May 1982 and who have not passed the test during the period of exemption, will be reverted and in their places qualified persons will have to be promoted. The petitioners attack Ext. P-6 order as illegal and contrary to the judgments of this Court in Ext. P-2 as affirmed in Writ Appeal 16 of 1985, and Ext. P-3 as affirmed by Ext. P-5 and Ext. P-1 order of the Government itself. The petitioners attack Ext. P-6 order as illegal and contrary to the judgments of this Court in Ext. P-2 as affirmed in Writ Appeal 16 of 1985, and Ext. P-3 as affirmed by Ext. P-5 and Ext. P-1 order of the Government itself. The petitioners state that the view of the 1st respondent in Ext. P-6 order that those persons who were otherwise qualified and who were promoted provisionally as Excise Inspectors before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the introduction of the test and they do not have to be reverted is clearly illegal. It is also against the tenor of Ext. P-2 and P-3 judgments and the judgments rendered in the Writ. Appeals therefrom as also Ext. P-1. They pray for quashing the said direction and further pray for reverting all unqualified Excise Inspectors provisionally promoted whether prior to 14th May 1982 or after that date. Counsel contended that once such Special Rules have been promulgated by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982, the vacancies, whether they arose before or after the date, of the Special Rules, are to be filled up only as per the Special Rules. Counsel laid stress on rule 6(2) of the Special Rules which provided that "no person shall be eligible for appoint -ment ..unless he has passed the tests specified ..Reference was also made to definitions contained in Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, rule 2 (1) specifying 'appointment to a service', rule 2(9) 'member of a service' as also to rule 9 clause (iv) and rule 31 (c) to show that any person provisionally or temporarily appointed is not a member of the service. In view of the amendment contained in rule 6(2) of the Special Rules, when the question of filling up of a vacancy to the post of an Excise Inspector is taken up, the qualifications, contained in the Special Rules should be applied for filling up the vacancy, whether it is one which arose before the Special Rules were promulgated or after it. On these premises, the conclusion in Ext. P-6 that persons who were otherwise qualified and who were promoted before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the introduction of the test by the Special Rules in G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 and they do not have to be reverted was attacked as arbitrary, unfair and unjustified. 3. On these premises, the conclusion in Ext. P-6 that persons who were otherwise qualified and who were promoted before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the introduction of the test by the Special Rules in G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 and they do not have to be reverted was attacked as arbitrary, unfair and unjustified. 3. The learned Government Pleader, Mr. Cyriac Joseph who appeared for the respondent State and Board of Revenue and led the main arguments formulated the following points: (i) There was justification for the delay in making regular promotions. There was delay in convening the Departmental Promotion Committee. All promotions made after 8th September 1974 were only provisional. (Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit). (ii) Ext. P-6 is not against Ext. P-1 order or Ext. P-2, P-3 and P-5 judgments. (iii) The amendment to the Special Rules effected by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 took effect only from 14th May 1982 and it is not retrospective. (iv) Rule 13-A of the K.S. and S.S.R., 1958 is attracted in this case, since what is contemplated by the Special Rules is a Departmental Test. Note to rule 6 as amended by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 specifies this as a Departmental Test. (v) For vacancies which arose before 14th May 1982, persons who were qualified when the vacancies occurred or arose, need not pass the test introduced by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982. Rule 28 (bb) of the K.S. and S.S.R. 1958 is clear that promotion shall ordinarily be made with reference to the conditions existing at the time of occurrence of the vacancies and not with reference to those at the time when the question of promotion is taken up. (vi) A few persons who were not qualified as per G.O. (P) 36/ 82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 were promoted provisionally, pursuant to the directions of this Court in O.P. 3298 of 1977, 2240 of 1979 and 947 of 1980. They were promoted only because of Court order. All such promotions were only provisional, and in compliance with the orders of this Court. Facts relevant thereto are dealt within para­graph 14, 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit. They were promoted only because of Court order. All such promotions were only provisional, and in compliance with the orders of this Court. Facts relevant thereto are dealt within para­graph 14, 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit. It may be mentioned that points No. (i), (iv) and (vi) are only statements of fact; points No. (iii) and (v) go together point No. (ii) raises a different argument. There are only two fold arguments. One covered by points (iii) and (v) and the other covered by point No. (ii). 4. Mr. O. V. Radhakrishnan, Counsel who appeared for the three petitioners in O. P. 4312 of 1985 submitted the following points: (i) Petitioner No. 1 was provisionally promoted as per Ext. P-1, dated 12th June 1980, petitioner No. 2 was provisionally promoted on 15th October 1981 and petitioner No. 3 was provisionally promoted as per Ext. P-2 by order dated 5th June 1982. The amendment to the Special Rules effected by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 was published in the Gazette only on 6th July 1982 and it will apply only from that date. (ii)The Special Rules promulgated by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD. dated 14th May 1982, will apply to the vacancies which arose only after that date and will not be applicable to the vacancies which occurred or arose before that date. In other words, the Special Rules aforesaid have no retrospective effect. Rule 28 (iA) is relevant. M/s. Chandrasekharan and Chandrasekhara Menon also supported Mr. Radhakrishnan in this regard. 5. Mr. T. P. Kelu Nambiar who appeared for respondents 4 and 5 in O. P. No. 9797 of 1985 and in O. P. No. 2240 of 1979 and 947 of 1980, supporting the arguments of petitioners, Counsel contended as follows: (i) The persons aforesaid were promoted on 1st August 1984 and 4th September 1985 as per the orders of this Court. G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 will apply to all selections made thereafter, whenever the vacancies arose. Persons who were promoted before 14th May 1982 had no right, much less any vested right, to the post. In evaluating the scope of G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982, one has to bear in mind that the vacancies are being filled to a selection post, and on the date of selection, if any amendment has been made in the Special Rules, it should apply. In evaluating the scope of G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982, one has to bear in mind that the vacancies are being filled to a selection post, and on the date of selection, if any amendment has been made in the Special Rules, it should apply. (ii) It is wrong to say that G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 is retrospective. Even assuming the language of the Rule has got retrospective effect, it is clear from the Explanatory Note that the Special Rules were brought into force to enable the officers to know the office procedure. It is to fulfill that object, the Special Rules insisted the additional qualifications. It was indended by the language of the rule itself that it will apply to the filling up of all vacancies taken up for consideration after the date of the Special Rules aforesaid. The language in the amendment is clear. On this basis, the view expressed in Ext. P-6, in O.P. 5733 of 1985 that persons who were promoted before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the introduction of the test and they need not be reverted is patently unsustainable. 6. The points formulated by the parties can be summarised as follows: According to the petitioners the Special Rules promulgated by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD. dated 14th May 1982 will apply for filling all vacancies to the post of Excise Inspectors, whether the vacancy arose before or after 14th May 1982. Only persons who have passed the tests specified in the said Special Rules can be considered for promotion. The view expressed to the contrary in Ext. P-6 that persons promoted provisionally before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the Special Rules, and they need not pass the test laid down in G.O (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 is clearly illegal and arbitrary. It also militates against Ext. P-2 and P-3 Judgments and judgments rendered in Writ Appeals therefrom and Government Order Ext. P-1. According to the contesting respondents, the Special rules promulgated by G.O (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 is not retrospective in operation. The additional test introduced by the said rule is inapplicable to vacancies which arose or occurred before 14th May 1982. P-2 and P-3 Judgments and judgments rendered in Writ Appeals therefrom and Government Order Ext. P-1. According to the contesting respondents, the Special rules promulgated by G.O (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 is not retrospective in operation. The additional test introduced by the said rule is inapplicable to vacancies which arose or occurred before 14th May 1982. The promotions made before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the Special rules which came into force on 14th May 1982 and they will be unaffected by the new rules. The view expressed to the same effect in Ext. P-6 is justified. The said view does not militate against Ext. P-2, P-3 and P-5 judgments or Ext. P-1 Government order. The additional contention taken up by Sri O. V. Radhakrishnan, Advocate, was that the amendment to the Special Rules promulgated by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 was published in Kerala Gazette only on 6th July 1982 and it will apply only from that date. 7. In the final analysis, only three broad questions arise for our consideration. They are: (A) On what date the amendment to Special Rules effected by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 came into force? (B) Are the aforesaid amendment to the Special rules, "retrospective"? Can those rules be made applicable, to vacancies which arose or occurred before the promulgation of the said rules dated 14th May 1982, in the matter of "selection" to the post of Excise Inspectors? (C) Does Ext. P-6, order to the extent it holds that, "those persons who were qualified and who were promoted before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the introduction of the test and they do not have to be reverted", represent the correct view of the law and does it not militate against Ext. P-1 order of Government dated 24th October 1984 and Ext. P-2 and P-3 Judgments of this Court, as affirmed in the Writ Appeals, filed therefrom? 8. We shall first dispose of the question, regarding the date on which the amendment to Special Rules promulgated by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 came into force. This aspect was argued by Sri O. V. Radhakrishnan only. P-2 and P-3 Judgments of this Court, as affirmed in the Writ Appeals, filed therefrom? 8. We shall first dispose of the question, regarding the date on which the amendment to Special Rules promulgated by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 came into force. This aspect was argued by Sri O. V. Radhakrishnan only. Counsel contended that in view of section 3 of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, (Kerala Act No. VII of 1125), the said amendment came into operation only when it was first published in the Gazette, namely, on 6th July 1982. This argument fails to give effect to the express language of section 3 of the Act, which states that "where any Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day, then it shall come into operation on the day on which the Act, is first published in the Gazette" Here in G.O. (P) 36/82/ TD, dated 14th May 1982 itself, the note to section 2 of the amendment rules, specifically states that two years or four chances shall be given ..from the date of issue of the orders. The amendment itself has expressed sufficiently and in clear terms that, that it will come into operation from the date of issue of the orders, i.e., 14th May 1982 itself. The argument that section 3 of the Kerala Act No. VII of 1125 is attracted, is without force and it is repelled. 9. The second question that arises for consideration is the scope and impact of the special rules promulgated as per G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982. The respondents contend that the special rules in question is not retrospective and it cannot be made applicable to a vacancy which arose or occurred before 14th May 1982. In other words, persons who are otherwise qualified, and who were promoted before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the introduction of the test and they need not be reverted. It is stated that in filling up a vacancy which arose before 14th May 1982, persons who were qualified as per existing rules then, should be considered for the post. The state of affairs that existed as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy alone is relevant and the state of affairs that existed or exists on the date when the promotion is considered or taken up is not relevant. The state of affairs that existed as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy alone is relevant and the state of affairs that existed or exists on the date when the promotion is considered or taken up is not relevant. In answering this question, we have to bear in mind certain fundamental aspects. The post of "Excise Inspector" is a selection post. It was throughout a selection post. All promotions after 8th September 1974 were only provisional. This is conceded. There was delay in convening the departmental promotion committee. By G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982, anew departmental test was insisted as a qualification for the promotion post. When the departmental promotion committee takes up the question of filling up the post, the amended special rules, were in the statute book. The explanatory note to the amendment in G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 stated that at that time it was not obligatory on the part of the Excise Personnel to acquire experience in office work, and the amendment was issued to obtain Officers who know the office procedure. It is settled law that the Government servant has got only a right to be considered for the selection post. He cannot say, that he is entitled to the post. He has got only a right to be considered. It is only an "expectancy". By applying this special rule for a selection post on or after 14th May 1982, to a vacancy which arose before that date, it is not, as if persons who were qualified before the date of special rules ie., before 14th May 1982, were not entitled to be considered or were done away with or excluded totally, in filling up the selection post. They were not deprived of their right for being considered for the selection post. All that was insisted was that they should have the qualification prescribed by special rules in G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 also. ie. they should pass the departmental test in District Office Manual or Manual of Office Procedure. It is to select proper and competent persons who know the office procedure, a pass in test was insisted. In so considering the matter, can it be said that the special rules dated 14th May 1982 are applied retrospectively. ie. they should pass the departmental test in District Office Manual or Manual of Office Procedure. It is to select proper and competent persons who know the office procedure, a pass in test was insisted. In so considering the matter, can it be said that the special rules dated 14th May 1982 are applied retrospectively. As to whether the aforesaid rules are retrospective, depends upon its scope, having regard to its language and the object discernible from the rules read as a whole. As held in Commissioner of Customs v. Thorn Electrical 1975 (1) All E.R. 439 at 447 "if the meaning of words in an enactment is clear, there is no presumption against them having a retrospective effect, if that is, indeed the result they produce". (This decision was approved by the House of Lords in 1975 (3) All E.R. 881 at 890 and 896). It is also settled law that because "a part of the requisites for action is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing, the statute or rule is not called retrospective" See Craies Statute Law VII Edition page 387 and G.P. Singh Interpretation of Statutes III Edition, page 342 (Foot Note 16). In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that in making appointments by selection, in conformity with the provision contained in the special rules as amended by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982, there is no question of giving any retrospective effect to the said rules. Alternatively, we are also of the view the special rule read as a whole, in the light of its object contained in the explanatory note, and the words used in the operative part, makes it clear that it will apply even to vacancies which arose before 14th May 1982. In taking this view, we are also fortified by an unreported decision of this court in O.P. 879 of 1973. Balakrishna Eradi, J. (now Judge of the Supreme Court) in delivering the judgment in O.P. No. 879 of 1973 observed thus: "Once the Special Rules had come into force any appointment could thereafter be effected only in conformity with the provisions contained in the rules, irrespective of the question as to the date of occurrence of the vacancy which is sought to be filled up. Any departure from this principle would manifestly contravene the principle of equality before law enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution". This decision was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 413 of 1975, judgment dated 25th January 1977. The Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No. 413 of 1975 observed thus:" "We do not think that in giving effect to Ext. P-6 Special rules with respect to the date of making the appointment there can be any question of giving retrospective effect on the mere ground that the vacancies to which the appointments are made had arisen prior to the Rules". In Ext. P-2, Sivaraman Nair, J. held: "The attempt to regulate the promotions on the basis of the statutory rules by ordering regular promotions on a date subsequent to the commencement of the amendment of the special rules does not justify the complaint that the rules are being applied retrospectively to vacancies which arose on dates earlier than the date of promulgation of the amended rules." This judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A, No. 16 of 1985. The State is a party to the above proceedings. It is bound by the said decision. The language contained in rule 6 (2) of the Special Rules, is also relevant in this regard. It states "no person shall be eligible for appointment to any category .unless he has passed a test specified". This rule is in the nature of an injunction on its own terms.. Any appointment to be made after the said special rules were issued, can only be in accordance with those rules irrespective of the question as to when the vacancies arose. We, therefore, hold, that the amendment to the special rules effected by G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 cannot be really called retrospective. On a total view of the matter, the said rule is applicable to vacancies which arose or occurred even before the said rules dated 14th May 1982 were issued, in the matter of selection or appointment to the posts of Excise Inspectors. We reject the argument of the respondents to the contra. For the same reasons, we hold that Rule 28 (bb) of K. S. and S.S.R. 1958 (General Rules) will not affect, the special rules or selection" posts in this case. 10. We reject the argument of the respondents to the contra. For the same reasons, we hold that Rule 28 (bb) of K. S. and S.S.R. 1958 (General Rules) will not affect, the special rules or selection" posts in this case. 10. In this connection, we would like to indicate that for a selection post, a Government servant is only entitled to be considered. Can it be said that he has got a "right" or is it only like a mere hope or expectation? If what the Government servant could claim is only an entitlement to be considered for the post, it requires investigation in each case, as to whether he deserves in all the facts and circumstances, to be selected for appointment to the post. The investigation is, to decide whether he should be, selected to the post. Is the entitlement of a Government servant to be so considered for a selection post, in truth a "right"? This is a matter which requires a detailed investigation in an appropriate case. 11. We have already held, that since all the promotions subsequent to 8th September 1974 were only provisional, when the question of selecting or appointing persons to the post of Excise Inspectors arise, the test insisted by the special rules in G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 should govern the matter. It will govern even for filling up the vacancies which arose or occurred before the rules were issued on 14th May 1982. 12. We now pass on to the third question regarding the validity of Ext. P-6 in the light of our findings and observations in the preceding paragraphs. Persons who were promoted before 14th May 1982 provisionally should also pass the test in order to make them eligible for being considered for the selection. The view expressed in Ext. P-6 that persons who were otherwise qualified and who were promoted before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the introduction of the test and they do not have to be reverted is clearly wrong. We quash Ext. P-6 in so far as it states to the contrary. We are of opinion that the above view expressed in Ext. P-6 militates against Ext. P-1 order of the Government dated 24th October 1984. Ext. P-6 also ignores Ext. P-2 judgment of this Court rendered in OP. We quash Ext. P-6 in so far as it states to the contrary. We are of opinion that the above view expressed in Ext. P-6 militates against Ext. P-1 order of the Government dated 24th October 1984. Ext. P-6 also ignores Ext. P-2 judgment of this Court rendered in OP. 7103 of 1984 (affirmed in Writ Appeal 16 of 1985) as also Ext. P-3 judgment, of this Court rendered in O.P. 6730 of 1984 and 7988 of 1984. (Affirmed in W.A. No. 209 of 1985). On this ground also, we hold that Ext. P-6 is illegal. The 1st respondent was in error in refusing to implement the direction contained in Ext. P-3, to revert all unqualified Excise Inspectors provisionally promoted whether prior to 14th May 1982 or after that date, in accordance with Ext. P-3 judgment. The 1st respondent should have given effect to Ext. P-2 as affirmed in W. A. No. 16 of 1985 and Ext. P-3 as affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 209 of 1985 and reverted all unqualified Excise Inspectors provisionally promoted prior to 14th May 1982 or after that date. 13. Before closing the case, we would like to deal with one or two aspects highlighted by the learned Government Pleader, Mr. Cyriac Joseph. It was contended that Ext. P-3 judgment did not really deal with the case of persons provisionally promoted before 14th May 1982 and so Ext. P-3 will not stand in the way of Ext. P-6. This argument is without substance. The observations in Ext. P-3 are of a general nature. The respondents also understood it only in that light. It is so evident from paragraph 2 of the Appeal Memorandum in Writ Appeal No. 209 of 1985, Ext P-4, filed by the respondents wherein a specific ground was taken that the learned Single Judge in delivering Ext. P-3 judgment failed to take into consideration whether the Excise Preventive Officers who were promoted as the Excise Inspectors prior to the coming into force of Ext. P-l Notification (Notification dated 14th May 1982) are also liable to be reverted. It was contended that the Preventive Officers who were promoted prior to the coming into force of Ext. P-l Notification (Notification dated 14th May 1982) and who did not acquire the qualifications prescribed in the said Notification within the period of exemption are not liable to be reverted. These contentions were not accepted. It was contended that the Preventive Officers who were promoted prior to the coming into force of Ext. P-l Notification (Notification dated 14th May 1982) and who did not acquire the qualifications prescribed in the said Notification within the period of exemption are not liable to be reverted. These contentions were not accepted. The Writ Appeal was dismissed. There is no case for the respondents that the above ground was urged in the Writ Appeal due to a mistake or misapprehension. Having taken up a specific plea in the Writ Appeal Memorandum and courted a dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the respondents are precluded from contending that Ext. P-3 judgment was not concerned with the promotions provisionally made before 14th May 1982 and their reversion. We repel the argument of the Government Pleader that Ext. P-3. did not adjudicate that question. 14. In stressing the argument that the qualifications or state of affairs as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy alone is relevant and not the state of affairs or the qualifications that prevail, on the date when the promotion is considered, respondents counsel brought to our notice the decisions in Varghese and others v. State of Kerala 1981 K.L.T. 458, Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala 1982 K.L.T 539 and T. V. Rangaiah and others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 852. We perused through those decisions, with care. The facts of the two Kerala cases are entirely different. In those cases, the question of appointing a person to a selection post did not arise. In those two cases, the question of promotion to a "selection post" in the light of the special rules that prevailed on the date when the matter is considered as in this case, did not arise for consideration. In our opinion, the said decisions are distinguishable. Regarding Rangaiah's case, the relevant rules considered therein required a panel to be prepared every year and transfer or promotion should be made out of that panel of the list of approved candidates. The list of approved candidates was not prepared as on 1st September 1976. It was delayed and drawn up only in 1977 when an amendment to the Rules was incorporated by Government Order dated 22nd March 1977. The list of approved candidates was not prepared as on 1st September 1976. It was delayed and drawn up only in 1977 when an amendment to the Rules was incorporated by Government Order dated 22nd March 1977. By the amendment, the provision in the original rules providing for consideration of Lower Division Clerks for appointment as Sub Registrars Grade II was done away with, and promotion or transfer to that category was to be made from among Upper Division Clerks employed in the Registration and Stamps Department. The petitioners in that case were working as Lower Division Clerks in 1976. By delaying the preparation of list of approved candidates till the rules were amended, the petitioners' chances for consideration for appointment to the higher post were adversely affected and the petitioners' entitlement to be considered for the post was lost for ever. In that context, the Supreme Court held that the panel should have been prepared in the year 1976 and that the transfer or promotion to the post of Sub Registrar Grade II should have made out of that panel. In that event, the petitioners therein who ranked higher than some of the respondents would not have been "deprived of their right of being considered for promotion". In that view of the matter, it was held that the vacancy which occurred prior to the amended rules, would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. On a close reading of the said decision, it is evident, that the provision regarding consideration of Lower Division Clerks for appointment as Sub Registrar Grade II were " done away" with, that they were "totally excluded", their chances for consideration for appointment to the higher post were adversely affected, and that they were deprived of their right of being considered for promotion. The said decision cannot apply to the facts of this case. It cannot at all be said in this case that any person in the eligible category of Preventive Officers is totally excluded or done away with or deprived of his right of being considered for promotion as it happened in the Supreme Court decision. It cannot be contended that Preventive Officers were totally deprived of their right of being considered for promotion or done away with. It cannot be contended that Preventive Officers were totally deprived of their right of being considered for promotion or done away with. The only further requirement for being considered for the selection post was a pass in the Departmental Test specified in G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982. We are of opinion that the decision in Rangaiah's case is distinguishable and will not apply to the case on hand. 15. In the light of the above, the Original Petitions are allowed. We quash Ext. P-6 in O.P. 5733 of 1985. We grant a declaration in all these Original Petitions on the following terms: (i) The amendment to the Special Rules issued as per G.O. (P) 36/82/TD, dated 14th May 1982 came into force on that date. (ii) The aforesaid amendment to the Special Rules will apply to vacancies which arose or occurred, even before the issue of the said rules, in the matter of selection, to the post of Excise Inspectors. (iii) The decision in Ext. P-6 in O.P. 5733 of 1985 holding that persons who were qualified and who were promoted before 14th May 1982 will not be affected by the introduction of the test and they do not have to be reverted is clearly illegal and unsustainable. It militates against Ext. P-1 Order of Government and also Ext. P-2 and P-3 judgments of this Court as affirmed in the Writ Appeals. (iv) All unqualified Excise Inspectors provisionally promoted prior to 14th May 1982 or after that date should be reverted. It is made clear that persons promoted provisionally, in compliance with the orders passed by this Court, as Excise Inspectors in various proceedings should also be reverted, if they are unqualified. This will take in, amongst others, the persons specifically referred to in paras 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit dated 31st January 1986. Ext. R-2 (b), (c) and (d) and orders to similar effect, shall, to the extent, they militate against the directions or declarations in this judgment, stand modified or varied. (v) Ext. R-2 (e) dated 4th January 1986 to the extent, it militates against the directions or declarations contained in this judgment shall stand quashed or annulled and shall not be given effect to, in any manner. (v) Ext. R-2 (e) dated 4th January 1986 to the extent, it militates against the directions or declarations contained in this judgment shall stand quashed or annulled and shall not be given effect to, in any manner. (vi) The reversions, transfers, promotions and postings of Excise Inspectors shall be considered afresh and regular promotions shall be made in the light of the observations, directions and declarations contained in this judgment, within three months from today. 16. The Original Petitions are disposed of as above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.