JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - These two writ applications involve identical disputes and therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioners by their respective applications under Articles 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari or an appropriate writ to quash order directing reversion (Annexure-5) and for issue of other appropriate writs. 3. The factual dispute lies within a very small compass. The Petitioners case, in short, is as follows: The Petitioners while working as Class IV employees under the District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, appeared at an interview and, were promoted to Class III posts. Subsequently they were directed to be reverted on the ground that there was no scope for holding an interview and/or promoting them. Challenge is made on the ground that on 6-4-1966 the Government of Orissa passed a Resolution wherein it was provided that 12 1/2% of the vacancies arising in a year in the categories of Class III posts Just above existing Class IV posts should be filled up by the employees belonging to the category of Class IV provided they have got the minimum required educational and technical qualifications. On 10-12-1966 General Letter No. 6 of 1966 (Civil) was issued by the Registrar of this Court in which it was stated that the Court was pleased to adopt the aforesaid Government Resolution; and the indicated percentage of vacancies arising in a year in the categories of' Class III posts just above the existing Class IV posts were to be filled up by Class IV employees who have passed at least the Middle English School Certificate Examination or an equivalent examination and have rendered not less than 5 years of service. It was also indicated therein that they have to qualify at a test to be held for the purpose. Subsequently the Orissa District and Subordinate Court's Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The said Rules prescribed the procedure and method of recruitment in respect of various posts in the ministerial services of the District Courts and the Subordinate Courts. The Petitioners who were matriculates were appointed on different dates as peons in the court of the District Judge, Berhampur. The said Rules prescribed the procedure and method of recruitment in respect of various posts in the ministerial services of the District Courts and the Subordinate Courts. The Petitioners who were matriculates were appointed on different dates as peons in the court of the District Judge, Berhampur. In terms of the Circular dated 6-4-1966 and the General Letter of the Registrar dated 10-12-1966 certain Class IV employees-who had passed the M.E. School Certificate Examination and were to complete five years of service by 1-4-1980, were allowed to sit at the competitive examination for considering their cases of promotion to Class III posts. The Petitioners appeared at the competitive examination on 20-4-1980 and also appeared at, a viva voce test subsequently. In June, 1980, the Petitioners were temporarily promoted to Class III posts. Suddenly, on 2-2-1981 the Petitioners were reverted to the former Class IV posts by order of the District Judge, Berhampur. No basis for such reversion was indicated in the order which is impugned in these writ applications. On enquiry the Petitioners learnt that the authorities were of the view that the Rules do not provide for any promotion from Class IV to Class III and therefore, the promotions given were irregular. The Petitioners filed appeals before this Court which were dismissed as communicated to them vide Annexure 7. The basis indicated was that there was no provision in the Rules providing such promotion and till such time the Rules are properly amended the cases of the Petitioners do not warrant any interference. 4. Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, strenuously urged that the Resolution dated 6-4-1966 and the General Letter No. 6 of 1966 (Civil) still hold the field and in the absence of any specific prohibition in the Rules, the Executive Instructions were to apply and the promotion was rightly given to the Petitioners and withdrawing the same is an act without any authority in law. It was submitted with reference to various documents that even in the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 and also thereafter similar promotions have been given by several District Judges in the State. It was submitted with reference to various documents that even in the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 and also thereafter similar promotions have been given by several District Judges in the State. Even conceding that the Rules did not provide for such promotion in view of the continued acceptance of the position that the Government Resolution dated 6-4-1966 and the General Letter No. 6 of 1966 (Civil) still hold the field, the order of reversion and confirmation thereof are illegal and are liable to be set aside. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State submitted that a bare reading of Rules 4 and 8 of the Rules clearly proves that the legislature was conscious of the fact that there was no scope for any promotion from Class IV to Class III as was done in this case. It was also submitted that even if the Petitioners appeared at any interview the same did not confer any right on them as the interview was not conducted in accordance with the provisions laid down in Rule 6 and Appendix A. It was also urged that wherever the legislature in its wisdom thought for providing promotional prospects, it made specific provisions. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders were passed in accordance with law and there is no scope for any interference. 5. On consideration of the rival contentions, in our view, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the Resolution dated 6-4-1966 and the General Letter No. 6 of 1966 (Civil) continued to hold the field after the Rules came into operation. For this purpose, a conspectus of the relevant provisions contained in Rules 4, 6, 8 and 10 are necessary. They are extracted below. 4. Method of recruitment: Subject to other provisions made in these rules recruitment to the posts in the ministerial service of the District Court and Subordinate Courts shall be made by the following methods, namely; (a) in respect of Lower Division Clerks, Copyists and Grade III Stenographers-by competitive examination in accordance with Rule 6, and (b) in respect of other posts-by promotion in accordance with Rule 10. 5. xxx xxx xxx 6. Competitive examination. 5. xxx xxx xxx 6. Competitive examination. (1) Recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Clerks, Typists and Copyists in the District Courts and the Subordinate Courts of each district shall be made by a competitive examination to be held once a year. Recruitment to the posts of Grade III Stenographers shall be made by a competitive examination, whenever necessary. (2) The competitive examination shall be conducted by each District Judge or such other officer as he may appoint in this behalf. The date on which and the places at which the examinations are to be held, shall be fixed by the District Judge. (3) A candidate shall- (a) have passed at least the Matriculation or an equivalent examination of a recognised Board or University; (b) be over 18 years and below 28 years of age on the date fixed by the District Judge; Provided that the upper age-limit shall be relaxed up to a maximum of five years if a candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; (c) be able to speak, read and write Oriya and has passed a test in Oriya equivalent to the M.E. Standard; (d) be of good character; (e) be of sound health, good physique and free from organic defects or bodily infirmity; (f) have not more than one spouse living, if married; and (g) have paid the fees prescribed for the examination. (4) The standard, syllabus, subject of examination, determination of vacancies, advertisement of vacancies and communication of results shall be as set forth in Appendix A. (5) In case a vacancy occurs after the list of successful candidates is exhausted and before the announcement of the result of the next examination, such vacancy may be filled up by a successful candidate of the previous years; provided that his age does not exceed the maximum limit laid down in Sub-rule (3) and failing that by any candidate who possesses the requisite qualification and is within the prescribed age-limit laid down in Sub-rule (3). In the latter event, the appointment of a candidate shall be made temporarily and shall not continue beyond the date when result of the next years examination is declared, unless he passes the said examination. 7. xxx xxx xxx 8. Fixation of seniority. (1) The seniority of Lower Division Clerks, Typists, Copyists and Stenographers inter se shall be determined in accordance. 7. xxx xxx xxx 8. Fixation of seniority. (1) The seniority of Lower Division Clerks, Typists, Copyists and Stenographers inter se shall be determined in accordance. with the position secured by them in the competitive examination held in a particular year. But where a candidate in a particular year could not be appointed in that year and he is selected under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 for appointment in the subsequent year, he shall, under the circumstances, rank just below the successful candidate of that year in which he is appointed. (2) The seniority inter se of the Junior Upper Division Clerks or the Senior Upper Division Clerks shall be determined with reference to the date of issue of the order of their promotion to the posts of Junior Upper Division Clerks or Senior Upper Division Clerks, as the case may be; Provided that if the date of issue of the order of promotion is the same in respect of two or more such clerks; their seniority inter se shall be determined according to their seniority in the lower rank. (3) A candidate directly recruited to the Approved Military Service shall on his appointment to the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts' Ministerial Service after release from the Military Service, be allowed to count towards seniority the actual period of his service rendered in the Military. He will be placed above all the direct recruit of the year in which his due date of appointment falls after antedating his date of appointment to the extent of approved Military Service. 9. xxx xxx xxx 10. Promotion to higher posts. Promotion to the higher posts shall be subject to the passing of the departmental examination and shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority arid be-made in the following manner, namely. 9. xxx xxx xxx 10. Promotion to higher posts. Promotion to the higher posts shall be subject to the passing of the departmental examination and shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority arid be-made in the following manner, namely. (a) Promotion to the post of Junior Upper-Division clerks shall be made from amongst the Lower Division Clerks, who have passed the departmental examination as laid down in Appendix B, annexed to these rules; provided that if no Lower Division Clerk as aforesaid is available, a Lower Division Clerk who has put in no less than 5 years of service as such and is otherwise suitable may be promoted to the post of Junior, Upper Division Clerk on temporary basis subject to the condition that he shall not be allowed any increment in the time scale of pay of the said Upper Division Post and shall be reverted as soon as a passed Lower Division Clerk is available. Provided that a Typist who has been appointed as a Lower Division Clerk after passing the departmental examination shall not be-required to pass a similar examination again to be eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Upper Division Clerk. (b) Promotion to the posts of Senior Upper Division clerks shall be made from amongst the Junior Upper Division Clerks, who have passed the Accounts Training Examination laid down in Rule 12. (C) Promotion to the posts of Nazir of the District Court shall be made from amongst the Senior, Upper Division, Clerks. (d) Promotion to the post of Sheristadar of the District Court shall be made from the post of Nazir. (e) Promotion to the posts of Grade II Stenographers shall ordinarily be made from Grade III and promotion to the rank of Grade I Stenographers shall ordinarily be made from Grade II, 6. A bare reading of Rule 4 makes it clear that the method of recruitment in respect of Lower Division Clerks, Copyists and Grade III: Stenographers is by a competitive examination in accordance with Rule 6 and in respect of other posts by promotion in accordance with Rule 10. The requirements of the competitive examination as referred to in Rule 4 are indicated in Rule 6. Here we are concerned with the method relating to the first category of employees referred to in Rule 11. The requirements of the competitive examination as referred to in Rule 4 are indicated in Rule 6. Here we are concerned with the method relating to the first category of employees referred to in Rule 11. Obviously Rule 4 does not provide for any promotion from Class IV. to Class III. On the other hand, the method of recruitment as aforestated has to be made in terms of Rule 6 by holding a competitive examination. According to the Petitioners, Rule 4 does not specifically exclude promotion and therefore, the executive instructions still hold the field. We find it difficult to accept this contention in view of the categorical provisions made in Rule 4 relating to recruitment of specified posts. The legislative intent appears to be further clear from the mode of fixation of seniority as provided in Rule 8. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 specifically provides that seniority of Lower Division Clerks, Typists, copyists and Stenographers inter se is to be determined in accordance with the positions secured by them in the competitive examination held in a particular year. This provision by implication makes it clear that the only method of recruitment is in terms of Rule 4 and not otherwise. Therefore, the reversion seems to be in order. But one disturbing feature which has perplexed us is the undisputed position that promotions from Class IV to Class III in terms of the Resolution dated 6-4-1966 and the General Letter dated 10-12-1966 continue to be given by other. District Judges, as evident from various orders filed by the Petitioners along with the additional affidavit. The assertion has not been disputed by the opposite parties. This has certainly created a very anomalous situation. The Petitioner's submission that there has been continued acceptance of the applicability of the aforesaid Resolution and the General Letter is not without substance. Needless to say two apparently conflicting methods should not have been and should not be followed. At our direction the records relating to the Petitioners' appeals were placed before us. We find that the State Government was, moved to make necessary amendments in the Rules so that the employees like the Petitioners are not discriminated and there is parity in the service conditions of employees almost similarly situated. Unfortunately, no concrete steps seem to have been taken in the matter. We find that the State Government was, moved to make necessary amendments in the Rules so that the employees like the Petitioners are not discriminated and there is parity in the service conditions of employees almost similarly situated. Unfortunately, no concrete steps seem to have been taken in the matter. The Appeal Committee while deciding the appeals of the Petitioners has not considered the matter in, the background indicated by us. The Appeal Committee appears to have considered the matter keeping in view the absence of any specific rule. The fact that similar promotions have been given by other District Judges appears not to have been brought to the notice of the Appeal Committee. The fact of continued acceptance of the policy laid down in the Resolution dated 6-4-1966 and the General Letter dated 10-12-1966 has also not been noticed by the Appeal Committee. We think it proper to remit the matter back to the Appeal Committee for reconsideration of the same keeping in view the entire background. The State Government would also do, well to immediately take steps for making necessary provisions in the Rules so that promotional prospect of a particular Class of employees is not blocked. We feel, it is the paramount duty of the State to obliviate situations where low-paid employees have scope for grievance. 7. The writ applications are accordingly disposed of, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. D.P. Mohapatra, J. 8. I agree. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed