JUDGMENT 1. The first two appeals are by the State Government challenging the common judgment in O.P. No. 3510/86 and 4657/86 rendered by a learned Single Judge and the third appeal is by respondent No. 14 in. O.P. No. 4657/86. As all these appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Single Judge and as common questions of law and facts arise for consideration they were heard together, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Panchayats in the State of Kerala, which are local bodies, are governed by the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Each Panchayat was entitled to appoint its own employees, subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In exercise of the power conferred by the provisions in sub-s.(1) of S.129 read with sub-s.(2) of S.39 of the Act, the Government of Kerala promulgated the Kerala Panchayats (Common Service) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Common Service Rules). These Rules came into force from Ist April 1977, R.3 of the Common Service Rules provides for constitution of the common service for the Panchayats in the State, with effect from 1st April 1977 and the said provisions reads: "3. Constitution of the common service.-(I) With effect on and from the first day of April 1977 the regular full-time employees of Panchayats other than the Executive Officer and those paid from contingencies shall be constituted into a common service for each district. (2) On the constitution of the common service under sub-rule (1) the District Panchayat Officer shall prepare a combined gradation list of persons holding each category of posts in the Panchayats of the district. (3) For the preparation of the combined gradation list the date of appointment of service in the cadre shall be the criterion for determining the seniority. If the date of appointment is the same in the case of employees of the different Panchayats, the older in age shall be treated as senior. Note.- (1) For the purpose of preparing the combined gradation lists, as required under sub-rule (3), persons holding the post of Panchayat Assistant Grade T and Grade II and the Head Clerks before the 1st April 1977, shall be treated as in one cadre. Total service as Panchayat Assistant Grade II shall be counted for reckoning the seniority. Note.- (1) For the purpose of preparing the combined gradation lists, as required under sub-rule (3), persons holding the post of Panchayat Assistant Grade T and Grade II and the Head Clerks before the 1st April 1977, shall be treated as in one cadre. Total service as Panchayat Assistant Grade II shall be counted for reckoning the seniority. (2) Persons appointed as Panchayat Assistant Grade II, Panchayat Assistant Grade I and the Head Clerks on and after the 1st April 1977 shall be treated as in different categories and their seniority list shall be prepared separately. (4) The combined gradation list prepared shall be circulated to all the Panchayats in the District and the Panchayats may in turn circulate it among the employees. Objections, if any, filed by the employees within 30 days from the date of circulation of the gradation list shall be forwarded to the District Panchayat Officer by each Panchayat. The District Panchayat Officer shall consider all such objections before the list is finally approved and published. (5) Appeal against the decision of the District Panchayat Officer shall lie with the Director who may take final decision independently or in consultation with the Government if necessary." By the operation of this rule persons holding the posts of Panchayat Assistants Grade I and Grade II and Head Clerks serving in connection with the affairs of the different Panchayats in the State before the 1st April 1977 became members of the Common Service constituted under the Rules. R.9 prescribes the qualifications for appointment and reads: "9. Qualifications.-(1) No person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to any post under a Panchayat. (i) If he is not a citizen of India. (ii) If he has not completed 18 years of age or is above 30 years of age on the 1st day of July of the year in which the appointment is made: Provided that the upper age limit prescribed in this rule shall be relaxed by five years in the case of a candidate belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and by 3 years in the case of a candidate belonging to any of the other Backward Classes. (2) No person shall be eligible for appointment to any post under a Panchayat by direct recruitment or by promotion or by transfer if he does not possess the qualifications prescribed for such post in the Annexure to these Rules. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) the Government may for sufficient reasons, on the recommendation of the appointing authority relax the age and qualifications prescribed under sub-rules (1) and (2) in respect of any candidate." The annexure to the rule which came into force on 1st April 1977, contained the post of Head Clerks, the posts of Panchayat Assistants, the posts of Bill Collectors and lower posts. The Annexure was amended by notification dated 24th January 1984 including the post of Manager as serial No. 1 above the post of Head Clerks, which was re-numbered as serial No. 1A. The Annexure in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of these cases, pertaining to the post of Manager, Head Clerks and Panchayat Assistants are extracted as follows: Category of posts Methods of recruitment Qualifications (1) (2) (3) 1. Manager By promotion from Head Clerk 1. S.S.L.C or its equivalent qualification 2. Pass in Account Test (Lower) 3. Panchayat Executive Officer Training or Panchayat Test 1A Head Clerk By promotion from among the Panchayat Assistants 1. S.S.L.C or equivalent 2. 10 years service as regular employee of the Panchayat 3. Panchayat Executive Officers Training or Panchayat Test 4. Pass in Account Test (Lower) 2. Panchayat Assistant By promotion from qualified Bill Collectors or appointment from among qualified Yogic Instructors S.S.L.C or equivalent There were no posts of Managers in any of the Panchayats until such posts were created by notification. dated 16th March 1977 in respect of about 350 Special Grade Panchayats in the State. Though the new posts were created by the said notification it was declared that the qualifications for the said posts will be prescribed by appropriate rules made in this behalf and that pending promulgation of the Rules appointments can be made to the posts of Manager subject to the rules to be framed by the government prescribing qualifications for the said posts. Qualifications were actually prescribed by amending Annexure to the Common Service Rules by notification dated 24th January 1984 as stated above. Qualifications were actually prescribed by amending Annexure to the Common Service Rules by notification dated 24th January 1984 as stated above. The qualifications as extracted above for the post of Manager are (1) SSLC or its equivalent qualification (2) Account Test Lower and (3) Panchayat Executive Officer Training or Panchayat Test. The same are also the qualifications prescribed for the post of Head Clerks. There is one more qualification which is required to be satisfied for Head Clerks, that is, 10 years' service as regular employee of the Panchayat. As the notification creating the new post of Managers in Special Grade Panchayats was issued only a few days before the coming into force of the Common Service Rules appointments to the posts of Managers could be made only after the Common Service Rules came into force. So far as the posts of Head Clerks in the several Panchayats in the State are concerned, they were filled up in accordance with the existing provisions regulating recruitment with the result several Head Clerks who were appointed before 1st April 1977 and had put in several years of service did not possess the qualifications prescribed for holding the post of Head Clerks by the Common Service Rules. But such of the persons who were holding the posts of Head Clerks became part of the Common Service Rules with effect from 1st April 1977. 3. This Court has held in W.A. No. 6870 of 1981 that persons who were holding the posts of Head Clerks before 1st April 1977 and came to the Common Service under the Common Service Rules are not required to possess qualifications prescribed for the posts of Head Clerks in the Annexure to the Common Service Rules. The clear effect of R.3, sub-rule (3) of the Common Service Rules is to bring the Panchayat Assistants Grade I, Grade II and Head Clerks as falling under one cadre and their relative seniority being determined taking into consideration the length of continuous service in the post of Panchayat Assistants Grade I, Grade II and Head Clerks. When such was the position, several appointment were made to fill up newly sanctioned posts of Managers immediately after the common service rules came into force in the year 1977. When such was the position, several appointment were made to fill up newly sanctioned posts of Managers immediately after the common service rules came into force in the year 1977. The appointments made until the qualifications for the post of Managers were prescribed by notification, dated 24th January 1984 were held as temporary appointments by the judgments rendered in O.P. No. 7595/83 and 2533/84 and connected cases by this Court, decided on 12th April, 1985. The said judgment which has become final and conclusive also declares the correct legal position flowing from the promulgation of the Common Service Rules, sanction of the new posts of Managers, prescribing of the qualifications for the said posts and the effect of the relevant provisions in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short, K.S. & S.S.R.), which are made applicable by R.12 of the Common Service Rules. For the sake of convenience, the final directions issued in the said judgment are extracted as follows: "42. The above original petitions are disposed of as follows: (1) The impugned reversions of Managers as Head Clerks and Head Clerks as Panchayat Assistants and Panchayat Assistants as Bill Collectors etc. ordered before 1st April 1984 on the ground of want of test qualification and as consequential arrangements can take effect only with effect from 1st April 1984, subject to the other directions in this judgment. Consequently the promotions effected in the light of such reversions also can take effect only from 1st April 1984, subject to the other directions in this judgment. All the reversions and promotions relating to the parties to the various original petitions shall be reviewed by the respective District Panchayat Officers within three months from to-day, in the light of the principles laid down in this judgment and fresh orders passed in accordance with law. Till such orders are passed, status quo as on to-day shall be maintained with reference to the parties to the original petitions, (2) The benefit of R.35 clause (a)(ii) will not be available in regard to the test qualification prescribed for the post of Manager by the amendment to the special rules. Till such orders are passed, status quo as on to-day shall be maintained with reference to the parties to the original petitions, (2) The benefit of R.35 clause (a)(ii) will not be available in regard to the test qualification prescribed for the post of Manager by the amendment to the special rules. (3) In regard to the promotion to the post of Manager, two years exemption regarding, possession of test qualification under R.13A(1)(b) of the General Rules shall be available from 24th January 1984 to all persons who were occupying the post of Head Clerk prior to 1st April 1977, if they were otherwise qualified. Such persons shall not be reverted from the post of Manager, except for want of vacancy, during the period of temporary exemption. This benefit will not be available to persons who became Head Clerks on or after 1st April 1984 (4) District Panchayat Officers shall examine claims for benefit of R.13A(1)(a), 13A(3)(3) and 13(b) of the General Rules before passing fresh orders in pursuance of this judgment. (5) Reversion can be ordered from the post of Manager or Head Clerk on the ground that the incumbents do not possess the requisite test qualification only if fully qualified persons are available to be promoted to such posts. (6) The District Panchayat Officers shall take note of G.O.L.A. 14/6735/57/ED, dated 3rd December 1957 in regard to persons in Service on 1st September 1957 who do not have the general educational qualification. Such persons will be eligible to occupy the post of Head Clerk and Manager without the general educational qualification." It was pointed out in the said judgment that those who came to the Common Service with effect from 1st April 1977 as Head Clerks though they could continue as Head Clerks in spite of the fact that they do not possess the qualifications prescribed by the Common Service Rules for the said posts, they cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Managers unless they acquired the qualifications prescribed for the said posts in the Common Service Rules. The said qualifications have been prescribed for the said posts on 24th January 1984. The said qualifications have been prescribed for the said posts on 24th January 1984. As the qualifications came to be prescribed only on 24th January 1984 such of the Head Clerks who came to the common service and who had not acquired the qualifications, it is declared that they have the right to acquire the said qualifications within a period of two years from the date of prescription of the rules, namely 24th January 1984, having regard to the provisions of R.13A(1)(b) of the K.S. & S.S.R. The question of acquisition of such qualifications for those who became Head Clerks after 1st April 1977 will not obviously arise as they are required to possess all the three qualifications prescribed for the post of Manager for earning eligibility for promotion to the cadre of Head Clerks. The State was therefore required to review the previous promotions and accord deemed dates of promotion to the cadre of Managers in the light of the law declared by this Court in O.P. Nos. 7595/83, 2533/84 and connected cases. One of the likely consequences of complying with these directions would be the reversion of some of the persons who held the posts of Head Clerks and were promoted temporarily as Managers if they had not acquired the qualifications prescribed for the posts of managers before 24th January 1986. To avert such possible reversions, persons likely to be reverted appear to have moved the authorities to persuade them to relax the qualifications prescribed for the post of Managers in their favour, in exercise of the powers conferred on the State under, sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules, which empowers the Government to relax age and qualifications prescribed under sub-rules (1) and (2), if in respect of any candidate the Government is satisfied of the existence of sufficient reasons for doing so, on consideration of the recommendations of the appointing authority in that behalf. The Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules passed the impugned order Ext. The Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules passed the impugned order Ext. P-5 dated 18th April 1986, the operative portion of which reads as follows: "After having examined the matter in detail Government are pleased to grant permanent exemption to the Managers who were continuing as Head Clerks prior to 1st April 1977, from possessing the test qualifications prescribed for the post of Manager as per the Government order read as 2nd paper above, in relaxation of R.9(2) of the Kerala Panchayat (Common Service) Rules, 1977 by invoking the provision under R.9(3) of the said rules." It is the said order of the Government that was challenged by persons likely to be affected by the said order in the two writ petitions out of which these appeals have arisen. 4. The learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 27th January 1987 has allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order Ext. P-5 dated 18th April 1986. The learned Single Judge further declared that the petitioners who had acquired the qualifications prescribed for the post of Managers are entitled to function as Managers from 24th January 1986, the last date for acquisition of qualifications for those who were holding the post of Head Clerks prior to 1st April 1977 and came to be temporarily promoted as Managers. It is the said judgment that is assailed in all these three appeals. 5. Whereas two of the appeals are by the State the other appeal is by one of the persons who was a Head Clerk before 1st April 1977 and came to be temporarily promoted to the post of Manager and who did not acquire the qualifications prescribed under the Common Service Rules for the said post. 6. The learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned order Ext. 6. The learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned order Ext. P-5 made under sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules on three grounds: They are (1) that the power of relaxation of qualifications conferred on the Government by R.9(3) of the Common Service Rules could not have been exercised in this case so as to give retrospective effect; (2) that the Government which has passed the impugned order under R.9(3) without an objective assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances and (3) that the power under sub-rule (3) of R.9 could not have been exercised by the State Government in such a manner as to reverse or annul the judgment of this Court in O.P. Nos. 7595/83 and 2533/84 and connected O.Ps., which has become final and conclusive and binding on the State Government. The challenge of the appellants in these appeals is against the findings of the learned Single Judge on the ground that all the three findings are not sound and deserve to be reversed. 7. We shall first examine the correctness of the findings of the learned Single Judge that the power under sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules could not have been exercised by the State Government so as to give retrospective effect. The learned Single Judge has held that such power of relaxation conferred on the State Government under R.9 (3) of the Common Service Rules can be exercised only with prospective effect as from the date of relaxation and not to affect the decisions before the date of exercise of that power. But it appears that the question is no more res Integra as it stands concluded by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 451 between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. D. Janardhanan Rao and another. The Supreme Court had occasion to examine the question as to whether similar power of relaxation conferred by R.47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules could be exercised so as to have retrospective effect. The Supreme Court after examining R.47 which is analogous to R.9(3).of the Common Service Rules stated the legal position in following terms in Para.8 of the Judgment thus: "............ Clearly the power under R.47 is to be exercised in the interest of justice and equity. The Supreme Court after examining R.47 which is analogous to R.9(3).of the Common Service Rules stated the legal position in following terms in Para.8 of the Judgment thus: "............ Clearly the power under R.47 is to be exercised in the interest of justice and equity. It is not difficult to see that the occasion for acting under R.47 may well arise after the attention of the Government is drawn to a case where there has been a failure of justice. In such cases justice can be done only by exercising the power under R.47 with retrospective effect., otherwise, the object and purpose of the rule will be largely frustrated. The view we take finds support from the decision of this court in R. P. Khanna v. S.A F. Abbas 1972 (3) SCR 548 = AIR 1972 SC 2350 ).......". The Supreme Court held that the order which was clearly retroactive and not prospective in operation is the one issued in proper and valid exercise of the power of relaxation in R.47. With great respect, we have therefore no hesitation in reversing the finding of the learned Single Judge that the power under sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules could not have been exercised as to give it retrospective effect. 8. We shall next take up for consideration the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Government who exercised the power of relaxation conferred on it under sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules could not arrogate to itself the judicial power of reversing or annulling the judicial verdict of this court in the judgment rendered by this court in O. P. Nos. 7595/83 and 2533/84 and connected cases. The law governing this aspect is well settled by a catena of decisions of the federal Court and the Supreme Court, which have been followed by this Court in the decision reported in 1988 (2) KLT 102 Between Ramakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala. 7595/83 and 2533/84 and connected cases. The law governing this aspect is well settled by a catena of decisions of the federal Court and the Supreme Court, which have been followed by this Court in the decision reported in 1988 (2) KLT 102 Between Ramakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala. The decisions which have settled the Jaw in this behalf are those reported in AIR 1944 FCI between Piare Dusadh v. King Emperor, AIR (31) 1944 FC 86, between Basantha Chandra v. Emperor, AIR 1970 SC 192 between Prithvi Mills v. Broach Munic AIR 1 975 SC 2299 between Smt. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1976 SC 2250 between I.N. Saksena v. State of M.P. and AIR 1987 SC 2310 between M/s Utkal Contractors and Joinery (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa. It has been clearly laid down in all these decisions that the Legislature has not been conferred any power under our Constitution to sit in judgment over decisions of Courts or reverse the same, that the Legislature can only exercise legislative power and not judicial power and that reversal of a judgment of a competent court is a judicial act and not a legislative function. The Legislature, it is well settled, can alter the basis on which the judgment or the judicial verdict is based, but it cannot annul or reverse the binding judgment of a Court of law. What the Legislature cannot do, it is obvious, the Executive Government cannot do in exercise of the administrative power conferred by sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules. 9. But the principal question for determination is whether by the exercise of the power of relaxation the State Government has tried to sit in judgment over the decision of this court or to annul the same. A bare reading of the impugned order, Ext. P.5, makes it clear that one of the reasons that has persuaded the Government to exercise its power of relaxation is to alleviate the parties from the hardship. If the impugned order is read as a whole, it becomes clear that the State Government has borne in mind the law declared by this court in O.P, Nos. 7595/83 and 2533/84 and connected cases and has not made any effort to sit in judgment over the said decision or to annul or reverse the same. If the impugned order is read as a whole, it becomes clear that the State Government has borne in mind the law declared by this court in O.P, Nos. 7595/83 and 2533/84 and connected cases and has not made any effort to sit in judgment over the said decision or to annul or reverse the same. What it has done is to exercise an independent power conferred on the State Government under sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules of relaxation of qualifications prescribed for the post of Manager. The judgment in O. P. Nos. 7595/83, 2533/84 and connected cases declares the legal position flowing from the statutory provisions. All that has been declared is that the qualifications having been prescribed for the post of Manager by amending the Rules with effect from 28th January 1984 R.13A of the K. S. and S. S. R. comes into operation, which gives two years from the date of prescription of the qualifications for acquiring them. The decision of this court only declares what is the clear effect of the prescription of the Rules, and the period which is available for persons concerned to acquire the qualifications. It further declared as to how the prescription of the qualifications and the time available for acquiring the same applies to persons who were Head Clerks before 1st April 1977 and who became part of the Common Service with effect from 1st April 1977. It is one thing to say as to what are the qualifications, who are required to acquire the same and within what time and quite a different thing to say as to whether the possession of such qualifications could not be relaxed having regard to the special facts and circumstances of each case. When this court declared the correct legal position in the earlier cases, it was so done without reference to the exercise of that power under sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Rules. The judgment of this court cannot be understood as either directly of impliedly curtailing or abridging in any manner the power of relaxation which has been statutorily conferred by sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules. The judgment of this court cannot be understood as either directly of impliedly curtailing or abridging in any manner the power of relaxation which has been statutorily conferred by sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules. Hence we have no hesitation in taking the view that the exercise of power of relaxation by the State Government under sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Ruler, being exercise of an independent power unrelated to the declaration of law made by this court, the exercise of which independent power cannot be regarded as having the effect of annulling or reversing the judgment of this court in O. P. Nos. 7595/83 and. 2533/84 and connected cases. With respect, therefore, it is not possible to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the impugned order could not have been made in exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules, relaxing the qualifications in respect of any particular candidate or candidates merely because of the law declared by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. 10. We must now take up for consideration the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Government in making the order has failed to make an objective assessment of all the facts and circumstances in passing the impugned order Ext. P-5 relaxing the qualifications for the post of Manager, in exercise of the powers conferred on it under sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules. It is clear from the language of sub-rule (3) of R.9 that the power of relaxation of qualification conferred on the State Government can be exercised (1) on the recommendation of the appointing authority (2) in respect of any candidate/ candidates and (3) for sufficient reasons. A bare reading of Ext. P-5 makes it clear that the relaxation of the qualifications has not been made in respect of any candidate or candidates. Though the order exercising the power under sub-rule (3) of R.9 can be made in respect of more than one candidate, the order as necessarily to be made in respect of the candidate or candidates after examining the cases of such candidate or candidates for satisfying the mind of the State Government that there are sufficient reasons for relaxing the qualifications in respect of such candidate or candidates. A bare perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that it does not advert to any particular candidate or candidates whose cases the Government has examined. In Para.3 of the order it is stated that "The General Secretary, Kerala Panchayat Employees' Union in their representation read above requested that the Head Clerks appointed prior to 1st April 1977 may be exempted permanently from passing the test qualification to hold the post of Manager." Thus it is the representation presented on behalf of the employees that has been examined by the State Government and not the cases of individual candidate or candidates. It is therefore obvious that the State Government has not at all applied its mind to the question as to whether sufficient reasons existed for relaxing the qualifications of any particular candidate or candidates. 11. Whereas the learned Single Judge has held that the State Government has not made the impugned order on an objective assessment of all the facts and circumstances, the learned High Court Government Pleader and the counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order itself makes it clear that it is taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and making an objective assessment of the same that the impugned order has been made. The only reasons stated in support of the exercise of power are stated in paragraph (4) of the order which reads: "But considering the very long period of their service for nearly nine years as Managers and distinction made by the High Court in their case, they seem to deserve sympathetic consideration on compassionate grounds." The judgment of this court in O.P. Nos. 7595/83, 2533/84 and other connected cases does not make any distinction in favour of any particular class of Head Clerks. The prescription of the qualifications for the post of Managers is one and the same and has to be satisfied by everyone aspiring to become a Manager. Same qualifications . have to be possessed by persons who were Head Clerks before 1st April 1977 and became part of the common service as also persons who became Head Clerks after 1st April 1977. Same qualifications . have to be possessed by persons who were Head Clerks before 1st April 1977 and became part of the common service as also persons who became Head Clerks after 1st April 1977. Hence it is not correct to say that any distinction was made in Regard to the qualifications so far as the persons who hold the post of Head Clerks before 1st April 1977 is concerned, regarding their claim for promotion to the cadre of Managers. If at all, any distinction is made in favour of this class of persons it is in their favour, namely, that though they did not possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Head Clerks, they having become Head Clerks before 1st April 1977, they can continue to hold the post of Head Clerks. Thus it is obvious that no distinction is made between persons who were Head Clerks before 1st April 1977 and those who became Head Clerks after 1st April 1977 in regard to the possession of qualifications for earning eligibility for promotion to the cadre of Managers. 12. The only other factor taken into consideration by the State Government is that these candidates have put in long number of years' service, for nearly 9 years as Managers, and therefore deserve sympathetic consideration on compassionate grounds. In O. P. No. 3510 of 1986 it is stated in Ground 'G' thus: "First of all, there are no unqualified Managers who have 9 years' service." This averment is not controverted, there being no counter affidavit filed challenging the assertion made. The order impugned also does not advert to any particular facts from which it has drawn the inference that there are persons who have put in 9 years of service as Managers. On the contrary we have before us positive information at least in respect of respondent in O. P. 4657 of 1986 that he became the Manager only in the year 1985. The impugned order came to be made in April, 1986. Thus he had put in less than a years' service. The impugned order relaxes the qualifications in favour of Managers who were continuing as Head Clerks prior to 1st April 1977 from possessing the prescribed qualifications for the post of Manager. Thus it is clear that relaxation is ordered on the ground that these persons have put in nine years' service as Managers. The impugned order relaxes the qualifications in favour of Managers who were continuing as Head Clerks prior to 1st April 1977 from possessing the prescribed qualifications for the post of Manager. Thus it is clear that relaxation is ordered on the ground that these persons have put in nine years' service as Managers. However, the relaxation is not restricted to those who have put in 9 years' of service, but it is available to all persons, who were Managers on the date of the impugned order and who were Head Clerks prior to 1st April 1977 irrespective of the number of years' service they have put in as Managers. In other words, every person who was a Head Clerk before 1st April 1977 irrespective of the date on which he came to be promoted as Manager before the passing of the impugned order is given the benefit of relaxation. This benefit of relaxation is available to all those who have put in even less than 9 years' of service also. There are many persons who have been promoted between 1st April 1977 and 18th April 1986. The assertion that there are no persons who have put in 9 years' of service is not denied and there is positive material to show that at least one of the parties was promoted only in the year 1985. In another writ petition, O. P. No. 5675/86, the petitioner was promoted on 19th December 1981 thus having only five years' service. If what has weighed with the Government ' in according relaxation is the fact that persons who have put in 9 years of service deserve sympathetic consideration, the relief in fact has been granted to those who have not put in 9 years' of service. We say so because Para.6 of the impugned order says that every person who is Manager as on the date of the order impugned will be exempted provided he was a Head Clerk prior to 1st April, 1977. This clearly discloses the clear lack of application of mind. It is obvious that the State Government has not made any attempt to apply its mind to the relevant facts of the particular candidates but has chosen to be persuaded merely on the persuasiveness of the Employees' Association. This clearly discloses the clear lack of application of mind. It is obvious that the State Government has not made any attempt to apply its mind to the relevant facts of the particular candidates but has chosen to be persuaded merely on the persuasiveness of the Employees' Association. Titus we find that both the reasons stated in the impugned order for according relaxation flow from non application of the mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the candidates concerned. 13. Another aspect which the State Government has failed to take into consideration is that on the coming into force of the common Service Rules, Panchayat Assistants Grade II, Grade I and Head Clerks are all required to be treated as falling under one cadre for the purpose of preparation of a combined gradation list. Their seniority is required to be fixed in such a gradation list on the basis of the continuous officiation in the combined cadres. Therefore it is obvious that those who were Head Clerks prior to 1st April 1977 need not necessarily be on the top of the combined gradation list as their position depends upon the length of continuous officiation rendered as Panchayat Assistants Grade II, Panchayat Assistants Grade I and Head Clerks and not merely the length of continuous service in the cadre of Head Clerks. Thus some of the Panchayat Assistants Grade I or Grade II may find a higher place than that of the Head Clerks in the combined Gradation List which is required to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the Common Service Rules, But the relaxation of the impugned order has been confined only to a small section among those included in the combined gradation list, namely, those" who were holding the posts of Head Clerks prior to 1st April 1977. When the Statute mandates that who were holding the posts of Panchayat Assistants Grade II, Grade I and Head Clerks should form members of a combined cadre and that their relative seniority has to be fixed on the basis of their offciation in all these three cadres prior to 1st April 1977 the State Government could not have picked and chosen only those who were Head Clerks prior to 1st April 1977 for a special treatment, there being no justifiable reasons for doing so. The State Government for the purpose of exercising the power of relaxation conferred on it under sub-rule (3) of R.3 of the Common Service Rules cannot affect the integrity of the gradation list which is required to be statutorily prepared in accordance with sub-rule (3) of R.3 of the Common Service Rules. The action of the State Government is bound to result in denying the benefit of relaxation to a person who is higher in the combined gradation list merely on the ground that he was not a Head Clerk prior to 1st April 1977, though for the purpose of combined gradation list it is immaterial whether the post held is that of Panchayat Assistant Grade I, Grade II or Head Clerk. Thus it is obvious that there was total lack of application of mind by the State Government to these unreasonable consequences flowing from its actions. The State Government has also failed to bear in mind the fact that the promotions were made temporarily subject to the prescription of the qualifications for the post of managers by promulgation of the appropriate amendment to the Rules. Those who were promoted and who have got the benefit of the higher position got an advantage for a large number of years and they knew that they were required to acquire qualifications as and when they are prescribed. Even after the prescription of those qualifications with effect from 24th January 1984, R.13Aof the K.S. and S.S.R. has given them two years to acquire the said qualifications. By the time the impugned order came to be made the said period had lapsed. The fact that temporary promotions were made expressly subject to prescription of the qualifications, the fact that they had enough time to acquire the qualifications are not taken into consideration, as factors which ought to have been taken into account, while exercising the power of relaxation under sub-rule (3) of R.9 of the rules. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the State Government has failed to take into consideration the relevant factors and has taken into consideration irrelevant factors in the matter of according relaxation. We have therefore ho hesitation in taking the view that the impugned order suffers from the non application, of mind of the State Government to the facts and circumstances of the case. We have therefore ho hesitation in taking the view that the impugned order suffers from the non application, of mind of the State Government to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is on this ground that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. For the reasons stated above, all these appeals fail and are dismissed. Though we agree with the final conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the impugned order, Ext. P-5, is liable to be quashed, we do so for the reasons stated by us in our judgment. No costs.