Judgment :- 1. This appeal is by the additional 4th respondent in the O.P. challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.6944 of 1986. The relevant facts for understanding the principal contention raised in this appeal may briefly be stated as follows. The appellant and the first respondent are both employees of a private college by the name Union Christ College, Alwaye. The appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on the 10th of October, 1983 whereas the first respondent joined service in the same college as an Attender in the year 1971. On the 16th of September, 1985, three vacancies of Upper Division Clerks occurred in the college. The 4th respondent promoted respondent No.l by Ext.P3 dated 23-5-1986 with effect from 16-9-1985. The Principal of the college sought approval from the Director of Collegiate Education, the second respondent. The college came within the purview of the Gandhiji University, (now renamed as Mahatma Gandhi University) with effect from 2-10-1983 under the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985 (Act 12/1985). The qualifications for the post of Upper Division Clerks for members of non-teaching staff were prescribed by Statute 41 of Chap.3 of Part IV of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1979 which came into force on 2-10-1983. For the post of Upper Division Clerks, the minimum qualifications prescribed by Statute 41 are: 1. S.S.L.C. or equivalent examination. 2. Pass in the Manual of Office Procedure. 3. Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Public Service Commission. The first respondent was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk under Ext.P3 subject to the condition that he passes the Account Test (Lower) before 31-12-1987. It was further specified that if he remained unqualified in the test within the stipulated period, he shall be reverted to his original post of L.D.Accountant (Higher Grade). On 1-1-1986 the Director of Collegiate Education informed by Ext.P5 the Principal of the college that the appellant has complained about the appointment of the first respondent and that the Principal should therefore offer his remarks about it. The Principal was further informed that the case of the first respondent has been forwarded to the Government for clarification and that the vacancy of U.D. Clerk need not be kept unfilled until clarification from the Government is received. The Principal was further asked to fill up the vacancy by promoting qualified hands. The Principal was further informed that the case of the first respondent has been forwarded to the Government for clarification and that the vacancy of U.D. Clerk need not be kept unfilled until clarification from the Government is received. The Principal was further asked to fill up the vacancy by promoting qualified hands. By another communication of the very same date, Ext.P6, from the Director of Collegiate Education to the Principal, the latter was informed that the Schedule Caste employees in private colleges are not eligible for test exemption and this position has been made clear by the Government as per their letter No.1475/D3/83/H.Edn.Dept. dated 18-12-1983. The proposal and service book of the first respondent were therefore returned to the Principal. The effect of this communication is that the Director did not approve the appointment of the first respondent on the ground that he has not passed the Account Test (Lower), prescribed by Statute 41 and that though the first respondent is a member of the Scheduled Caste, he is not entitled to exemption from acquiring the said qualification. The order Ext.P6 is consistent with the communication of the Government dated 18-12-1983 produced in this case as Ext.P7 wherein it is stated that no exemption is available for Scheduled Caste employees in private colleges from test qualifications. In view of the decision of the Director of Collegiate Education, the manager of the Union Christian College by Ext.P8 dated 15-9-1986 informed the first respondent that his appointment has not been approved and a copy of the letter of the Director of Collegiate Education was furnished to him. He was called upon to explain within two weeks of the date of receipt of the said letter as to why he should not be reverted to the post of L.D. Accountant (Higher Grade), his promotion hot having been approved by the authorities concerned. It is in this background that the first respondent filed O.P.No. 694/4/86 praying for quashing of Exts.P6, P7 and P8 and for a declaration that the first respondent being a Scheduled Caste employee,he is entitled to exemption from passing the Account Test (Lower) in accordance with the orders of the Government issued under R.13AA and R.13AB in Part II (General Rules) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. He prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the Director of Collegiate Education to approve the promotion of the first respondent to the post of U.D.Clerk and for other consequential benefits. 2. The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 5th January,1987 allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext.P6 and declared that the first respondent was fully qualified to be promoted,he being a member of the Scheduled Caste exempted from passing the departmental test of Account Test (Lower) under R.13A of the K.S.& S.S.R. It is the said judgment that is challenged by the appellant in this appeal., 3. The first respondent had taken the stand that he is exempted from passing the Account Test (Lower) for promotion to the post of U.D.Clerk, he being a member of the Scheduled Caste, having regard to the provisions of R.13A of the K.S.& S.S.R., which claim has been upheld by the learned single Judge. Attempt is now made in this appeal to invoke the provisions of R.13AA of K.S.& S.S.R. also. The principal question for consideration therefore is as to whether the first respondent who does not possess one of the qualifications prescribed for the post of U.D. clerk namely that of Account Test (Lower) could have been promoted to the said post in the vacancy that occurred on the 16th of September, 1985 on the ground that he had the benefit of exemption from passing the test either under R.13A or under rule BAA of the K.S.& S.S.R. 4. The appellant and the first respondent being employees of the Union Christian College, Alwaye which is a private college, affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University, it is not disputed that they are governed by the statues framed under the Act in regard to the qualifications, method of appointment and conditions of service. Sub-. section (2) of S.67 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 provides that the method of appointment, pay and other conditions of service of the non-teaching staff of private colleges shall be such as may be prescribed by the statutes. Sub-. section (2) of S.67 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 provides that the method of appointment, pay and other conditions of service of the non-teaching staff of private colleges shall be such as may be prescribed by the statutes. Sub-section (2) of S.99 of the Act provides that all statutes and Ordinances made under the Kerala University Act, 1974 and in force on the date of the commencement of the Act, shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, continue to be in force until they are replaced by the Statutes and Ordinances to be made under the Act. The First Statutes of the Kerala University Act which were in force on 2-10-1983 thus became, the Statutes of the Mahatma Gandhi University. Chap.3 of the Statutes contains provisions regarding conditions of service of members of non-teaching staff. Statutes 41 in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case may be extracted as follows: "41. Qualification for appointments.-- The minimum qualifications for the various categories of non-teaching staff in private colleges shall be as follows: Statute 66 which falls for interpretation in this case may be extracted as follows: "66. Filling up of vacancies.-Subject to the rules in force in similar Government Institutions regarding qualifications and method of appointment, the vacancies in the higher grades shall be filled up by promotion from the next lower categories, if qualified persons are available, according to seniority in the case of non-selection posts, and according to merit and seniority in the case of selection posts and if there are no candidates available for promotion to the higher grades, the posts shall be filled up by direct recruitment by inviting applications and selection by the management in the manner laid down in these statutes". 5. The method of appointment prescribed by Statute 66 which is required to be followed is to fill up the vacancies by promotion if qualified persons are available according to seniority in the case of non-selection posts and according to merit and seniority in the case of selection posts. It is only if there are no candidates available for promotion that the posts can be filled up by direct recruitment. It is only if there are no candidates available for promotion that the posts can be filled up by direct recruitment. Though the statutes in express terms prescribe minimum qualifications for several posts, Statutes 66 provides that the posts shall be filled up subject to the rules in force in similar Government institutions regarding qualifications and method of appointment. Having regard to the expression "subject to the rules in force in similar Government institutions regarding qualifications and method of appointment" the view taken by the learned single judge is that R.13A of the K.S.& S.S.R. governs the filling up of the posts of U.D.Clerks in the private colleges. As R.13A governs the employees in similar Government institutions namely Government Colleges, it is held that the said provision equally regulates the appointment of the non-teaching staff of the private colleges. The principal contention of Sri.M.I. Joseph, learned counsel for the appellant, is that R.13A of the KS.& S.S.R. cannot come to the aid of the first respondent in claiming exemption from passing the Account Test (Lower) for earning promotion to the post of U.D.Clerks, even assuming for the sake of argument that it being a rule in force in similar Government institutions, the same governs the filling up of the posts of U.D.Clerks in the college in question. R.13A of the K.S.& S.S.R. to the extent it is relevant and has been relied upon, may be extracted as follows: "13A. Special and Department Tests-Temporary exemption for promotion.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in R.13: (a) Where a pass in a special or departmental test is newly prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post therein or in any class thereof, a member of a service belonging to any of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes who has not passed the said test but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to such class, category, grade or post may be appointed thereto temporarily. (b) Where a pass in a special or departmental test is newly prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post therein or in any class thereof, a member of service who has not passed the said test but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to such class, category, grade or post may, within two years of the introduction of the test, be appointed thereto temporarily. (2) If a member of a service appointed under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) does not pass the test within three years from the date of such appointment or when the said test also involves practical training, within three years after the first chance to undergo such training after such appointment, or if a member of service appointed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) does not pass the test within two years from the date of introduction of the said test or if the said test also involves practical training, within two years after the first chance to undergo such training after the introduction of the said lest, he shall be reverted to the class, category, grade or post from which he was appointed and shall not again be eligible for appointment under clause (a) or (b) as the case may be, of sub-rule (1): Provided that the period of temporary exemption allowed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be extended by three years in case of a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. What is relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent is clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of R.13A in support of his contention that the first respondent being a member of the Scheduled Caste, he was entitled to be appointed temporarily to the post of U.D.Clerk, notwithstanding the fact that he had not passed the Account Test (Lower), one of the qualifications prescribed for the said post by Statute 41. The first respondent would be entitled to claim the benefit of R.13A(1)(a) only if the conditions specified therein under the said provisions are the following: (1) That a special or departmental test should be newly prescribed (2) that such prescription should be by special rules. (3) that the member of the service must belong to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. (4) that he should not have passed the test newly prescribed and (5) that he should be otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment. The question for consideration in this case is as to whether all these conditions are satisfied in order to claim exemption from passing the Account Test (Lower). We shall first examine as to whether the Account Test (Lower) is a test which has been prescribed newly, inorder to claim the benefit of exemption from passing the same. The question for consideration in this case is as to whether all these conditions are satisfied in order to claim exemption from passing the Account Test (Lower). We shall first examine as to whether the Account Test (Lower) is a test which has been prescribed newly, inorder to claim the benefit of exemption from passing the same. R.13A speaks of granting of temporary exemption, notwithstanding anything contained in R.13. R.13 interalia provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service, class, category or grade or any post borne on the cadre thereof unless he possesses such special qualifications and has passed such special tests as may be prescribed in that behalf in the Special Rules or possesses equivalent qualifications. The expression "special rules" has been defined in R.2(16) to mean rules in Part III applicable to each service or class of service. A combined reading of R.13 and 13A makes it clear that no person can be appointed to any post unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed in the special rules. What R.13A deals with is not the special rules which are required to be complied with by R.13. R.13A speaks of granting exemption for promotion from passing a special or departmental tests which are newly prescribed by the special rules. The rule making authority has granted temporary exemption from passing the test newly prescribed by the special rules. No attempt is made by R.13A to grant exemption from passing the test which are not newly prescribed by the special rules. A clear distinction is made between special or departmental test prescribed by the rule and special or departmental tests newly prescribed by the special rules special or departmental test newly prescribed by the special rules contemplated by R.13A are those which are added after the rules came into force. This was done with a view to give reasonable time to the employees to acquire newly prescribed qualifications. In our opinion the expression "newly prescribed" used in R.13A does not take in the qualifications prescribed by the very same rules, but takes in only those qualifications which are subsequently added or introduced, learned counsel for the first respondent however contended that we should understand the expression "newly prescribed" as conveying that it is the test which a person already in service who does not possess that qualification is required to acquire. It is difficult to accept this argument. What is contemplated by R.13A(1)(a) is the prescription of the new qualifications meaning thereby prescribing certain qualifications in addition to or other than those that were already in force. As already stated the distinction is between the existing qualifications prescribed by the rules themselves and those qualifications which are newly added thereafter. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the exemption contemplated by R.13A(1)(a) is only in respect of qualifications which are added subsequent to the coming into force of R.13A(1)(a) by means of special rules. If by virtue of statute 66, R.13A of the K.S.& S.S.R. gets attracted, it become part of the statute and comes into force on the same date along with the statutes. Therefore R.13A can be invoked only in respect of qualifications prescribed after the statutes came into force. The qualification of Account Test (Lower) is prescribed by statute 41 of the First Statutes. Account Test (Lower) qualification not having been prescribed after the statute came into force, as the benefit of temporary exemption can be claimed under R.13A(l) only respect of the newly prescribed rules, respondent No.l cannot claim exemption from acquiring the qualifications prescribed by statute 41. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that R.13A(l) gets attracted by virtue of statute 67, as one of the essential conditions prescribed in R.13A(l) is not satisfied, respondent No.l cannot claim temporary exemption under the said provision. 6. We shall now deal with another contention in regard to applicability of R.13A, to appointments of non-teaching staff in private colleges. R.13A grants temporary exemption from passing a special or departmental test which is newly prescribed by the Special Rules. 'Special Rules' has a special meaning assigned to it under R.2(16) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, which takes in only those rules incorporated in Part III of the K.S.& S.S.R. as provided in the definition of the expression special rules in R.2(16). R.13A deals with only special or departmental tests that are newly prescribed by a species of rules called special rules. R.13A deals with only special or departmental tests that are newly prescribed by a species of rules called special rules. Under the scheme of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, we have two sets of rules, one called the General rules as defined in R.2(8) Part I meaning thereby rules incorporated in Part II and another set of rules known as the special rules as defined in R.2(16) meaning rules incorporated in Part III applicable to each service or class of service. It is bearing in mind two sets of rules, known as the general rules and the special rules that it has been provided in R.13A that temporary exemption would be granted only when qualifications are newly prescribed by the special rules for any post or category of posts. To additional qualifications, newly prescribed by general rules, R.13A will not be applicable. The scheme of the rules thus makes it clear that R.13A has been incorporated having regard to the special pattern existing under the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, consisting of the general and special rules. It cannot have any application if similar pattern does not exist in the statutes. The statutes do not contemplate two sets of rules, like general rules and special rules as we find them in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The qualifications are prescribed by only one set of provisions contained in statute 41. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that R.13A of the K.S.& S.S.R. does not get attracted by virtue of statute 66 for appointment of members to the non-teaching staff of private colleges. 7. We shall now examine the contention of the first respondent that he is entitled to the benefit of exemption under R.13AA of Part II of the K.S.& S.S.R. The said rule reads: "Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may, by order, exempt for a specified period, any member or members, belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and already in service, from passing the tests referred to in R.13 or R.13A of the said rules. Provided that this rule shall not be applicable to test prescribed for purposes of promotion of the executive staff below the rank of Sub Inspectors belonging to the Police Department. Provided that this rule shall not be applicable to test prescribed for purposes of promotion of the executive staff below the rank of Sub Inspectors belonging to the Police Department. Note: This proviso shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 13.1.1972." This provision confers power on the Government to grant exemption for a specified period to any member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe from passing the tests referred to in R.13 and 13A R.13AA by itself does not grant any exemption in favour of the members belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. The order granting exemption under R.13 AA for a specified period in favour of any member or members belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe from passing any of the tests referred to in R.13 or 13A can only have the status of an executive order made under R.13AA and not the status of a rule. What gets attracted by statute 66 are the rules in force in similar government institutions and not orders made under the rules in force in similar government institutions. As R.13AA does not by itself grant any exemption in favour of the members of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, the first respondent cannot get any benefit. Hew would have got the benefit only if the rule itself exempted the members of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe from passing the prescribed tests or acquiring the qualifications. When the statute making authorities thought it fit to make orders issued under the rules also applicable, it has specifically provided so. It is provided in statute 68 that all orders, Government decisions, rulings and notifications issued by the Government with reference to any provision in Parts I and II of the Kerala Service Rules which are applicable to the members of non-teaching staff or private colleges shall also, so far as may be, apply to them, subject to such modification, as the context may require. If the intention of the statute making authority was to make the orders made under the K.S.& S.S.R. in force in similar government institutions applicable, it would have made a similar provision in the statutes. Statute 66 speaks of rules and not of orders made under the rules. If the intention of the statute making authority was to make the orders made under the K.S.& S.S.R. in force in similar government institutions applicable, it would have made a similar provision in the statutes. Statute 66 speaks of rules and not of orders made under the rules. Therefore we hold that the order of exemption issued by the State Government under R.13AAA will not govern the filling up of posts of non-teaching staff by virtue of statute 66. 8. Though the first respondent had invoked R.13A(B) also in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the first respondent rightly and fairly did not press his case in this behalf. Hence it is not necessary to examine that aspect of the matter. 9. Admittedly, the first respondent did not have Accounts Test (Lower) test qualification as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy on 16-9-1985, as also on 14-2-1986, when the appellant acquired the qualification for the said post. It is obvious therefore that the first respondent could not have been appointed to the post of Upper Division Clerk on both those dates. The first respondent became qualified by passing the test in November,1987.On 14-2-1986 the appellant was qualified and the first respondent though senior to him, was not qualified and a regular vacancy of the post of Upper Division Clerk was available for being filled up. The appellant was therefore entitled to be promoted with effect from 14-2-1986 when he acquired the qualification. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.