Judgment :- 1. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 joined service of the first respondent State as Lower Division Clerks. Petitioner was senior to respondents 3 and 4. In the gradation list of Lower Division Clerks as on 1-1-1956, he ranked 774 as against 775 and 831 of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 were later promoted as Upper Division Clerks, and in the final seniority list Ext.P2 dated 30-4-1976 the petitioner was assigned rank 438 with date of appointment 28-5-1963 as Upper Division Clerk, as against 440 and 468 of respondents 3 and 4. Based on this seniority, the petitioner was duly promoted as Head Clerk, Junior Superintendent as Senior Superintendent, prior to respondents 3 and 4. 2. After publication of the seniority list Ext.P2, Government promoted one Padmanabha Pillai in preference to others, by name K.K. Mathew and P.P. John, which resulted in those two persons moving this court by writ petition O.P.No.2496 of 1980. Therein it was admitted by Government that there was some mistake on their part in fixing the rank and seniority of K.K. Mathew and P.P. John. They undertook to rectify the mistake. But in purported rectification of the said mistake, Government modified Ext.P2 list substantially and altered the inter se ranking of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 in the category of Upper Division Clerks, though that was not in issue at all. The result was the petitioner got shuttled down to rank No.558 while respondents 3 and 4 stood elevated to Nos. 438 and 466. The petitioner's date of appointment as Upper Division Clerk was also altered as 29-8-1963 from 28-5-1963. This variation was made without any notice to the petitioner. He represented against it before Government. Simultaneously, he moved this court by writ petition O.P.NO.7003 of 1981, which was disposed of by the judgment Ext.P6. This court held that the failure of the authorities to afford opportunity to the petitioner to state his case before the rank assigned in Ext.P2 was disturbed, was improper; but as his representations were pending before Government, they were directed to be disposed of within a period of three months. 3. The petitioner supplemented his earlier representations with additional memorandum Ext.P7. 3. The petitioner supplemented his earlier representations with additional memorandum Ext.P7. However, and according to the petitioner, without applying the mind to the various contentions raised, Government refused to alter the rank assigned to the petitioner in the revised seniority list. They stated so in their letter Ext.P8 dated 16-6-1984. The petitioner made an application Ext.P9 for review, setting forth various grounds, but that was not considered. This original petition was therefore filed for relief. 4. The petitioner was a non-graduate at the time he entered service. He appeared for the B.Sc. Degree Examination held in September, 1961, the result of which was published in November, 1961. As per the Government orders in force at that time, promotion to the category of Upper Division Clerks was in the ratio of 1:1 between graduates and non-graduates, so that possession of a degree entitled the officer concerned to get a benefit in the matter of promotion to the higher cadre. As per the Government order Ext.P1 dated 20-4-1959 which stands incorporated in R.28(bbb) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (K.S.S.R.), where a pass in any examination or test confers on the Government servant, the title to any right, benefit or concession, such title shall be deemed to have accrued on the day following the last day of the examination or test which he passed provided the promotion was to a post not involving change of duties and was against a vacancy remaining unfilled, for want of test qualified hands. Petitioner claimed that he should be deemed to have passed the B.Sc. Degree examination and become a graduate in September, 1961 itself, when examination was held, and not in November, 1961 when the results were published. According to him, the seniority list Ext.P2 was revised without taking note of Ext.P1 or R.28(bbb), by treating him as a graduate only from November, 1961. This has resulted in his being assigned a lower rank in the revision of seniority. He had highlighted this contention before Government in his representations. But Government took the view in Ext.P8 that the order Ext.P1, incorporated in R.28 (bbb), has application only to departmental tests, and not to University Degree examinations. Petitioner's contention was therefore overruled. It is the correctness of this decision that arises for consideration here. The matter rests upon the interpretation of R.28(bbb) of the K.S.S.R. 5. But Government took the view in Ext.P8 that the order Ext.P1, incorporated in R.28 (bbb), has application only to departmental tests, and not to University Degree examinations. Petitioner's contention was therefore overruled. It is the correctness of this decision that arises for consideration here. The matter rests upon the interpretation of R.28(bbb) of the K.S.S.R. 5. R.28(bbb) which incorporates the earlier executive order Ext.P1 with some modification reads:- "Where a pass in any examination or test confers on a person the title to any right, benefit or concession, such title to the right, benefit or concession shall be deemed to have accrued a) in the case of a person who has passed such examination or test before the 14thAugust,1971, on the day following the last day of such examination or test in the subject or subjects; and b) in the case of a person who has passed such examination or test on or after 14th August, 1974, on the day following the last day of the whole examination or test in which he has successfully completed the examination or test by passing one or more subjects." The rule provides (so far as it is relevant to the case on hand) that any right, benefit or concession, which depends on the passing of any examination or test, shall be deemed to have accrued to the Government servant on the day following the last day on which such examination or test was held, and in which he passed. The rule (as extracted above) operates retrospectively from the date of Ext.P1, namely 20-4-1959. R.28(bb) provides that where promotion in a service or class depends upon the passing of any examination (general or departmental), such promotion shall ordinarily be made with reference to the conditions existing at the time of occurrence of the vacancies. R.28(bbb) explains as to when as officer shall be deemed to have acquired the qualification in question. 6. As mentioned earlier, the possession of a degree enabled a Lower Division clerk to aspire for promotion to the higher cadre, namely as Upper Division Clerk, in the graduate quota. Possession of a degree, though not a necessary basic educational qualification, required for promotion to the Upper Division cadre, nevertheless conferred a benefit on the Government servant concerned, by enabling him to be appointed to a graduate vacancy, if it arose, in preference to a non-graduate. Possession of a degree, though not a necessary basic educational qualification, required for promotion to the Upper Division cadre, nevertheless conferred a benefit on the Government servant concerned, by enabling him to be appointed to a graduate vacancy, if it arose, in preference to a non-graduate. In other words, a benefit accrued to an officer who possessed a degree vis-a-vis a non-graduate. In fact, the benefit of graduation was a material circumstance for the petitioner as evident from the Government letter Ext.P8, where Government stated that the petitioner's "rank was given by extending the benefit of R.27(b) of the General Rules and also considering your graduation. As per rules you are eligible to be considered as a graduate only from November, 1961". 7. Government's case is categoric that Ext.P1 and R.28(bbb) "relate to departmental tests and not University degree examinations". Sub-rule (bbb) of R.28 relates to any examination or test while sub-rule (bb) speaks of any examination (general or departmental). I repeatedly asked counsel as to what exactly was the examination contemplated, which was "a departmental test" as contended by Government. The learned Government Pleader was not able to point out any examination held by the department to which the word "examination" could be related. Evidently the tests conducted departmentally fall within the term "test" in the sub-rule. The rule making authority could not be presumed to have resorted to unnecessary verbiage to describe the departmental tests as "examination or test", when the word "test" would have sufficed. Some significance and meaning has therefore to be attributed to the word "examination". It must refer to something other than "departmental tests". That this is so is evident from the parenthesis after "examination" in sub-rule (bb) where it is explained as "general or departmental" examination. The qualification "general" is used in antithesis to "departmental". If the word "examination" could thus refer to an examination other than a departmental test (or departmental "examination", if any) certainly it must relate to those educational qualifications which will entitle an officer to get a benefit, as against other Government servants, not so qualified. 8. If this be the meaning of the term "examination" in sub-rule (bbb), necessarily the petitioner's rank and seniority has to be fixed under the sub-rule with reference to the day following the last day of the B.Sc. 8. If this be the meaning of the term "examination" in sub-rule (bbb), necessarily the petitioner's rank and seniority has to be fixed under the sub-rule with reference to the day following the last day of the B.Sc. Degree Examination, held in September, 1961 and not with reference to November, 1961 as held in Ext.P8, subject of course to Explanation (1) to the sub-rule. The view taken in Ext.P8 is not therefore correct. Ext.P8 has to be quashed. 9. As to what relief should follow on such reckoning of the petitioner's qualification, is a matter for Government to work out. What this court can do at this stage is to hold that the premise on which Ext.P8 was issued, that examination for the purpose of Ext.P1 or R.28(bbb) can only be a departmental test is not correct. Government has to reconsider the petitioner's representations in this view of the matter and pass appropriate orders. 10. I quash Ext.P8. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on the petitioner's representations in the light of the observations in this judgment, without any delay. Issue photo copy of the judgment on usual terms.