KUMARI USHABEN JOSHI v. STATE — 1991 DIGILAW 344 (GUJ)

SHAH, J. ( 1 ) ). By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the Notice Annexure c to the petition dated 16/ 17/02/1984 issued to her by respondent No. 2, the Director General and Inspector general of Police, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. By that notice, respondent No. 2 has directed that the petitioner would be relieved from the service on the expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a relief of quashing and setting aside the Resolution No. Bharat-1176-K, dated 20/11/1976 Annexure e (it should really be annexure d) to the petition, in so far as it does not provide for exemption from passing the post-training examination to the persons like the petitioner, whose appointments have been regularised and who have put in less than two years of service as on 1/04/1976. She has also prayed that after quashing the aforesaid resolution, a further relief be granted to the effect that the petitioner is exempt from passing the post-training examination. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for a relief for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid resolution in so far as it relates to "two years or more continuous service as on 1/04/1976", and a relief in the nature of direction to the respondents to exempt the petitioner from passing the post-training examination. ( 2 ) ). Upon her name being recommended by the Divisional Employment exchange Office, Ahmedabad under Annexure a dated 9/01/1975, the petitioner came to be appointed to officiate as temporary Junior Clerk in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State at Ahmedabad, purely as a local and temporary arrangement in the vacancy of one Shri N. A. Vora, junior Clerk who had been promoted. In para 2 of that Annexure a, the petitioner was informed that her appointment was temporary and was liable to be terminated at any time, also when the candidates selected by the departmental Selection Committee were available. ( 3 ) ). The petitioners appointment as a Junior Clerk as aforesaid was irregular for it did not conform to the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerk-Typists and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970 ("drp Rules" for short ). The DRP Rules form part of the Centralised Recruitment Scheme. ( 3 ) ). The petitioners appointment as a Junior Clerk as aforesaid was irregular for it did not conform to the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerk-Typists and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970 ("drp Rules" for short ). The DRP Rules form part of the Centralised Recruitment Scheme. It appears that the petitioner and quite a large number of others like the petitioner who came to be sponsored by the local Employment Exchanges were appointed to the posts of Clerks, Clerk-Typists, Typists, etc. pending availability of the candidates selected through the Centralised Recruitment Scheme or under the drp Rules. ( 4 ) ). Appointment of such persons were obviously irregular because they did not conform to the DRP Rules. However for one reason or the other, such irregularly appointed Clerks, Clerk-Typists and Typists were continued in service. The Government with a view to regularise the services of such irregularly appointed persons, on 10/11/1976, passed two Resolutions: (i) Annexure d bearing No. Bharat-1176 (2)-K; and (ii) Annexure e, bearing no. Bharat-1176-K. Annexure e deals with the cases of Clerks, Clerk-Typists, Typists, etc. who had put in more than two years of continuous service as on 1/04/1976. In relation to them, Annexure e makes certain provisions about regularisation of their services on the basis of the interview and/or type test, as the case may be, to be held by the concerned Department/ District Selection committee. Annexure e further makes certain provisions about relaxation in age limit etc. Clause (vi) of paragraph 2 of Annexure e, which is relevant for the purpose of determination of this petition reads as follows :"such of the persons as are selected as Clerks or Clerk-Typists shall be exempted from undergoing the pre-service training and passing the post-training examination in relaxation of the scheme or rules of pre-service training of clerks. "annexure d also makes certain provisions for regularisation of the services of Clerks, Clerk-typists, Typists, etc. , who had put in less than two years of service on 1/04/1976, but who were within the age limit prescribed in the respective recruitment rules at the time of their initial appointments and who possessed the minimum educational qualifications. "annexure d also makes certain provisions for regularisation of the services of Clerks, Clerk-typists, Typists, etc. , who had put in less than two years of service on 1/04/1976, but who were within the age limit prescribed in the respective recruitment rules at the time of their initial appointments and who possessed the minimum educational qualifications. In relation to them, annexure d does not contain any provision similar to the one to be found in Clause (vi) of paragraph 2 of Annexure e granting exemption to them from undergoing pre-service training or passing the post-training examination in relaxation of the rules of pre-service training of Clerks. ( 5 ) ). Pursuant to the resolution Annexure d, the petitioners services as a Junior Clerk were required to be regularised. She therefore, appeared before the competent selection committee which selected her, and by order Annexure b, dated 28/02/1979, the petitioner came to be appointed as a temporary junior Clerk in the appropriate pay scale. In that order Annexure b, it is stated that the petitioner is appointed as a regular Junior Clerk. In that appointment order it is clearly stated that the candidate shall have to take the training prescribed for the Clerks and thereafter, shall have to pass the post-training examination. ( 6 ) ). For the purpose of regulating the conditions of service of the candidates selected as Clerks and Clerks-typists in the offices of Heads of Departments/ offices and officer under their administrative control in so far as they relate to the training and passing of the post-training examination, Government of gujarat under Art. 309 of the Constitution has framed Rules, which have been effective from June 10, 1970. These rules are known as the gujarat Non- secretariat Clerks and Clerk-typists (Training and Examination) Rules, 1970 (training and Examination Rules for short ). ( 7 ) ). Rule 5 of the Training and Examination Rules provides for pre-service training. That Rule provides that every candidate selected for appointment to the post of Clerk or Clerk-typist in the offices specified in Rule 3 shall be required to received pre-service training in the Administrative Training School or training centres at Ahmedabad, Baroda and Rajkot and other places where the training class is organised for a period of two months. This shall include theoretical training for 1 1/2 months and practical training for remaining 15 days. ( 8 ) ). This shall include theoretical training for 1 1/2 months and practical training for remaining 15 days. ( 8 ) ). Rule 6 of the Training and Examination Rules provides for post-training examination. That rule provides that on conclusion of the training, a candidate shall be required to appear at the post-training examination and to pass it in not more than three chances. The second proviso to Rule 6 of the Training and Examination Rules, reads as follows :"provided further that if in case of any such candidate the State Government is satisfied that he could not pass the examination at which he had his last chance for reasons beyond his control or that he failed to pass such examination by a very narrow margin of marks, the State Government may, after recording reasons in writing, give him not more than two additional chances to pass the examination on payment of examination fee of fifteen rupees. "the words not more than two additional chances have been substituted for the original words one more chance as they appeared in the Rules as originally framed, by the second amendment in the Rules in 1978. The word candidate as used in Rules 5 and 6 of the Training and Examination rules has been defined in Rule 4 (c) to mean a person selected for appointment as a clerk and/or a clerk-typist in the offices specified in Rule 3. Rule 3 specifies various departments/offices, and it is not disputed before me that the office in which the petitioner came to be appointed is covered within rule 3. Thus, the petitioner on her selection and appointment as a Clerk under order Annexure b dated 28/02/1979 was required to receive training under Rule 5 and to pass the post-training examination under Rule 6 of the Training and Examination Rules. Under the Training and Examination rules, as they were originally framed, a candidate was required to pass the post-training examination in not more than three chances and the Government had the discretion to grant a candidate one more chance to appear at the examination on payment of examination fee. Under the amended Rule, now a candidate is required to pass the examination in not more than three chances, and the Government has been given the discretion to grant him not more than two additional chances, to pass the examination. Under the amended Rule, now a candidate is required to pass the examination in not more than three chances, and the Government has been given the discretion to grant him not more than two additional chances, to pass the examination. In all, therefore, at the maximum, a candidate would have five chances in which he should pass the post-training examination. ( 9 ) ). As stated in the petition, after the petitioner came to be appointed on regular basis under the order Annexure b dated 28/02/1979, she was asked to undergo the pre-service training, and to pass the post-training examination. She appeared at the post-training examination thrice, but failed every time. Thereafter two further chances were given to the petitioner and she appeared at the examination but unfortunately she failed even at those two chances also. She has, therefore, exhausted all the five chances available to her to pass the post-training examination, but she failed to pass the said examination. It appears that the petitioner bad availed of four chances to appear at the examination and pass the same before this petition came to be filed. It further appears that after the petition came to be filed, the petitioner availed of the fifth and the last chance, and even at the fifth and last chance, she failed to pass the post-training examination. ( 10 ) ). As the petitioner had not passed the post-training examination within the permissible chances, respondent No. 2 terminated her services, albeit, without giving any notice to her. She, therefore, filed a writ petition in this high Court. It appears that at the hearing of that writ petition being Special civil Application No. 621 of 1984, the respondent-authorities realising the mistake, cancelled the order terminating the services of the petitioner as no one months notice was given to the petitioner. As that order was cancelled by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner withdrew that petition on 15/02/1984. It is thereafter that on February 16/17, 1984, respondent No. 2 issued to the petitioner, the notice Annexure c, which is challenged in this petition. ( 11 ) ). Mr. As that order was cancelled by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner withdrew that petition on 15/02/1984. It is thereafter that on February 16/17, 1984, respondent No. 2 issued to the petitioner, the notice Annexure c, which is challenged in this petition. ( 11 ) ). Mr. Supehia, the learned Advocate for the petitioner very vehemently submitted that the resolution Annexure d is discriminatory inasmuch as it does not provide for exemption to the Junior Clerks who have put in less than two years of service as on 1/04/1976 from passing the post-training examination, though such exemption is granted by annexure e to the Junior Clerks who have rendered two years or more continuous service as on 1/04/1976. Mr. Supehia submitted that the classification sought to be made in these two resolutions, Annexures d and e is irrational and arbitrary and it does not have any rational relation to the subject sought to be achieved. Therefore, the discrimination meted out by classification between the clerks, who have put in less than two years of service as on 1/04/1976 on one hand, and the clerks who have rendered two years or more continuous service as on 1/04/1976, on the other, is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 12 ) ). In support of his submission as aforesaid, Mr. Supehia, relied upon the decision in the case of D. S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 . In the case of D. S. Nakara (supra), the challenge on the ground of violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution was to the central Government Memorandum which provided a formula for computation of liberalised pension. The benefits under the liberalised pension scheme were made available to the Government servants, officers and others who retired on or after 1/04/1979, but the benefits of that liberalised pension scheme were not made available to the persons who retired before that date. In that case, it was held that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits formed a class, which cannot be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to the purpose of revision of pensionary benefits. In that decision, the principles that have been enunciated are that the classification has to be based on some rational principle, and the rational principle must have nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In that decision, the principles that have been enunciated are that the classification has to be based on some rational principle, and the rational principle must have nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In that decision, the objects underlying the payment of pension, were considered in details and it was found that there was no rational principle behind the classification that was sought to be made in that case between the persons who retired before a certain date and those who retired on or subsequent to that date. ( 13 ) ). It is the principles that have been laid down in the case of D. S. Nakara (supra) that are important, and not the facts of that case, so far as the determination of the present case is concerned. The principles, as said above, are that the classification has to be based on some rational principle, and the rational principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. Applying these principles to the facts of the instant case, i think the classification, that is sought to be made between the clerks/ clerk-typists who have rendered services of two years or more as on 1/04/1976, and those who have put in less than two years of service as on 1/04/1976, must be said to have been based on rational principle which has nexus to the object sought to be achieved, ( 14 ) ). It could not be disputed that the Government, as an employer, is bound to strive for maintaining and increasing the efficiency of the services. It is, therefore, that the scheme of pre-service training and post-training examination is devised, and for the implementation of that scheme, the Training and Examination Rules have been framed. Merely because a person applies for and comes to be selected for appointment, would not be sufficient. That person, while in service has to work efficiently. He has to prove himself to be an efficient employee. Now, whether he is or is not efficient, obviously cannot be determined at the time he is selected for appointment. Merely because a person applies for and comes to be selected for appointment, would not be sufficient. That person, while in service has to work efficiently. He has to prove himself to be an efficient employee. Now, whether he is or is not efficient, obviously cannot be determined at the time he is selected for appointment. When a person gets appointed in service, he is almost new or raw and therefore, in order to train him in the line, the concept of pre-service training is devised and Rule 5 of the Training and Examination Rules requires a candidate selected for appointment to the post of Clerk-Clerk/typist to undergo such training. After he undergoes such training, under Rule 6 he is required to pass the post-training examination within the permissible number of chances. As of right, a candidate can claim three chances to pass the examination. If he fails at all the three chances, under the Training and Examination rules as originally framed, the Government had the discretion to grant him one more chance. With a view to ameliorate the difficulties of some unfortunate persons who might have failed to clear the examination within the permissible three chances, the Government was conferred with a discretion to grant one more chance to such a person. With a view to further ameliorate their lot, the Rule came to be amended, and instead of one more chance, the Governments discretion is widened and the Government is vested with a discretion to give two additional chances to the candidate to pass the post-training examination. ( 15 ) ). Thus, on one hand, the scheme behind the Training and Examination rules envisages achieving efficiency in service, but at the same time, it also takes care of the candidates who may not have been able to pass the post-training examination, at the first or the second or even at the third chance. The object behind the Training and Examination Rules definitely is to achieve efficiency in service. The object behind the Training and Examination Rules definitely is to achieve efficiency in service. If a person, after being selected for the post of Clerk, fails to receive the pre-service training, or having received the pre-service training fails to show his efficiency by passing the posttraining examination in the specified number of chances or within the extended number of chances, to grant which, the Government has been conferred with a discretion, it must be said that the particular person or the particular government employee is not efficient. It would not be in the public interest to retain such an inefficient person in service. It is, therefore, that a further provision is made in Rule 8 of the Training and Examination Rules. That rules 8 reads as follows :"8 (L) If a candidate fails to receive the prescribed training and/or fails to pass the post-training examination as required under these Rules, he shall not be eligible for appointment as a regular Clerk or Clerk-typist as the case may be in the offices mentioned in Rule 3. (2) If a candidate who is appointed as a Clerk or a Clerk-typist as a stop-gap arrangement subject to undergoing training and/or passing the posttraining examination fails to pass the post-training examination as required under these rules, his service shall be terminated. " ( 16 ) ). It is under Rule 8 (2) of the Training and Examination Rules that the notice Annexure c" has been issued to the petitioner for termination;of her service. As said hereinabove, these rules aim at achieving efficiency in service. Thus clerk or clerk-typists who are not efficient or who have failed to show their efficiency by receiving the prescribed training and/or passing the posttraining examination cannot say that they should be retained in service once they are appointed in service. As indicated herein-above, the appointment order annexure b dated 28/02/1979, itself specifically states that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary junior clerk and that she would have to take the training prescribed for the clerks and thereafter would have to pass the post-training examination. Going by the appointment order Annexure b it was incumbent upon the petitioner to pass the post-training examination. It is an admitted position that she has failed at the examination five times. Going by the appointment order Annexure b it was incumbent upon the petitioner to pass the post-training examination. It is an admitted position that she has failed at the examination five times. Under the Training AND Examination Rules, as said above, in all, at the maximum, a candidate would have five chances in which he/she should pass the posttraining examination. ( 17 ) ). The scheme of the Training and Examination Rules clearly envisages achieving efficiency in service. It is in this light that Annexures d and e are required to be examined in the background of certain other facts. ( 18 ) ). Though the DRP Rules were framed in the year 1970, it appears that quite a larger number of persons who had been sponsored by the local employment Exchange Offices were appointed to the post of clerks, clerktypists, etc. in the various offices and departments of the Government all over the State pending availability of the candidates selected through Centralised recruitment Scheme or under the DRP Rules. The appointments of such persons obviously were not in conformity with the DRP Rules or the Centralised recruitment Scheme. The appointments of such persons were, therefore, irregular. However, such persons had worked in the offices in which they came to be appointed for quite sometime. The Government with a view to see that such persons may not have to be retrenched thought of regularising the services of such persons as far as that was possible to be done, without adversely affecting the efficiency in service. It was, therefore, that the Government passed resolutions Annexures d and e on 10/11/1976. As said above, the Training and Examination Rules which are statutory rules were framed by the Government in 1970. All those candidates who came to be selected regularly under the DRP Rules or the Centralised Recruitment Scheme were also governed by the Training and Examination Rules, and they were required to receive the pre-seivice training and pass the post-training examination. While contemplating to regularise the services of the persons who were irregularly recruited, meaning thereby, whose appointments did not conform to the DRP Rules and the Centralised Recruitment Scheme, the anxiety of the government obviously was, and would be not to sacrifice the efficiency in service. While contemplating to regularise the services of the persons who were irregularly recruited, meaning thereby, whose appointments did not conform to the DRP Rules and the Centralised Recruitment Scheme, the anxiety of the government obviously was, and would be not to sacrifice the efficiency in service. At the same time, in the case of those who are irregularly appointed, but have put in two years or upwards of service in the concerned offices, it would reasonably be taken, that, having worked in a particular office, for two years or upwards, they must have acquired some efficiency and it would be reasonable to exempt them from receiving the pre-service training and passing the post-training examination. It is, therefore, that by clause (vi) of Paragraph 2 of Annexure e, such exemption is provided in their case. However, in case of irregular appointees who are fresh or raw, or who have not put in two years or upwards of service, there would be no warrant for saying that they have acquired efficiency for working in the office, which is a must for maintaining the efficient standards in public service. It is, therefore, that in their case, the requirement of receiving pre-service training and passing post-training examination is retained, and no exemption is granted to them. ( 19 ) ). Viewing Annexures d and e in light of the Training and examination Rules, the obvious purpose of which is to acquire and maintain efficiency in public service, I think the classification sought to be made amongst the irregular appointees, i. e. , clerks/clerk-typists on the basis of the period of service put in by them, cannot be faulted as being discriminatory or violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The classification is based on the well settled principle that in public service efficiency is required to be maintained and in case of those who have put in two years of service, it could be presumed that they have acquired some efficiency and therefore, it would not be proper to insist upon their receiving pre-service training and passing the post-training examination, whereas in case of those who have not put in two years or upwards of services, no such presumption would be warranted and there it should be insisted that they should receive pre-service training and pass the post-training examination in order to acquire and prove their efficiency. The object sought to be achieved is acquiring and maintaining efficiency in public service. The classification sought to be made has a direct nexus to that object. Annexure d, the Government resolution which does not provide for exemption to receive pre-service training and to pass the post-training examination, in favour of the persons like the petitioner, who have put in less than two years of service as on 1/04/1976, therefore, cannot be said to be violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. ( 20 ) ). The first submission of Mr. Supehia, therefore, fails. . ( 21 ) ). Mr. Supehia nextly argued that the Training and Examination Rules do not apply to the petitioner. According to Mr. Supehia, as provided in rule 3 of the Training and Examination Rules, those Rules apply to the candidates who are selected for appointment to the posts of Clerks and Clerktypists in the offices mentioned in that Rule, to which DRP Rules apply. In the submission of Mr. Supehia, the petitioner having not been appointed under the DRP Rules, the Training and Examination Rules cannot apply to the petitioner. I think the submission has no merit whatever. As stated above, the original appointment of the petitioner in the year 1975 was an irregular appointment. It was with a view to regularise that appointment and to bring it in conformity with the DRP Rules that Resolution Annexure d was passed, and it was pursuant to that resolution that the petitioner appeared before the Competent Selection Committee which selected her, and it was thereafter that she came to be appointed under the appointment order annexure b dated 28/02/1979. Her appointment clearly was, therefore, under the DRP Rules. The Training and Examination Rules, therefore, clearly apply to her, by virtue of Rule 3 of the Training and Examination Rules. She was required to receive training under Rule 5 of the said Rules and was required to pass the post-training examination under Rule 6 of the Training and Examination Rules. The submission that the Training and Examination Rules have no application to the petitioners case has no merit whatever. ( 22 ) ). Further, the last mentioned submission of Mr. Supehia cannot be accepted for the petitioner knew well that the Training and Examination Rules applied to her. The submission that the Training and Examination Rules have no application to the petitioners case has no merit whatever. ( 22 ) ). Further, the last mentioned submission of Mr. Supehia cannot be accepted for the petitioner knew well that the Training and Examination Rules applied to her. It was because of that that she appeared at the post-training examination three times; she failed on all those three chances. She then applied to the Government for an additional chance which was granted and she appeared at the fourth time and then also she failed. She further applied for the last and the fifth chance which was granted to her, but thereat also she failed. Therefore, now she cannot be allowed to argue that the Training and Examination rules do not apply to her. ( 23 ) ). A reference to the decision in the case of Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Ors, AIR 1976 SC 2428 will not be out of place, though it may not be on all fours. The observations of the Supreme Court in para 15 of that report are pertinent. They are as follows :"we do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee. "applying the principle enunciated by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. G. Sarana (supra) to the facts of the case before me, it has got to be said that the petitioner, having availed of all the five chances to pass the post-training examination and having failed at all the chances with full knowledge of the fact that the Training and Examination Rules apply to her, cannot, now be heard to say that the Training and Examination Rules do not apply to her. ( 24 ) ). The second submission of Mr. Supehia also fails. ( 25 ) ). Mr. ( 24 ) ). The second submission of Mr. Supehia also fails. ( 25 ) ). Mr. Supehia then submitted that Rule 8 (2) of the Training and Examination Rules cannot be applied to the petitioner, and under that rule, her services cannot be terminated for the petitioner has not been appointed as stop-gap anangcment. This suy mission is also devoid of any merit. The appointment order itself says that the petitioner is appointed as a temporary clerk and that order clearly states that the petitioner would have to take the training required for cleik and would have thereafter to pass the post-training examination. Her appointment was therefore, subject to undergoing the training ard passirg the post-trainirg examination. If she fails to pass the post-trainirg examination, her services are clearly liable to be teiminated under Rule 8 (2) of the Training and examination Rules. In this connection, Ms. Doshit, the learned A. G. P. , appearing for the respondents invited my attention 10 the judgment rendered by the Division bench of this Court on 8/07/1987, in Special Civil Application No. 3754 of 1986. In that case also, a similar contention was raised as is raised before me by Mr. Supehia, which was rejected. The Division Bench in that case observed as follows :"so far as the second contention is concerned, it is equally on a weak footing. It is true that as per the mandate of Rule 8, sub-clause (2) a candidate who is appointed as a stop-gap arrangement till he passes the post-training examination has to be terminated from service if he fails to pass the said examination. However, so far as rule 8 (1) is concerned, it has been provided that if a candidate fails to pass the posttraining examination, he will net be eligible for appointment as a regular Clerk. But that does not mean that a temporary Clerk who has failed to pass the post-training examination within the permissible chances can insist that for all times to come he should be continued as an irregular temporary employee and the only adverse effect of non-passing the departmental examination within the permissible chances would be that he will not be eligible for regular appointment. If he does not become eligible for regular appointment as a Clerk because of non-passing of the departmental examination within the permissible chances, the authoiitieswill be justified in terminating his services en the ground that he has failed to pass the departmental examination within the permissible chances. the very first condition of his order of appointment entitles the respondents to terminate the temporary appointment of the petitioner without giving any reason or notice. It is of course true that if the respondents try to do so, the very action can be challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary and not based on any rational reason. But such is not the present case. It cannot be said that the respondents who are seeking to terminate the service of a temporary hand are acting arbitrarily. When the employee has failed to pass the departmental exammaticn it is certainly a valid ground for terminating the service of a temporary hand, as provided in condition No. 1 of the appointment order Annexure-B. It, thesefcie, cannot be said that the proposed termination of the petitioners service is arbitrary or without any authority. The second contention also therefore, fails. "the above judgment of the Division Bench also clearly negatives the submission which is made by Mr. Supehia before me. ( 26 ) ). Mr. Supehia then submitted that the only effect of the petitioner not having passed the post-training examination would be that she would lose her seniority, but on the ground that she has not passed the post-training examination, within the permissible chances, her services cannot be terminated. In support of this submission, mr. Supehia relied upon Rule 21 of the DRP Rules. I think the submission is thoroughly misconceived. Rule 21 of the DRP Rules deals with the determination of inter se seniority between seniors and juniors and provides that the persons who are otherwise junior to their seniors would become seniors if they pass the post-training examination earlier than their seniors. That rule cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner in the present case. That rule has no relevance to the facts of the present case, and the question that is required to be determined in this case. That rule cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner in the present case. That rule has no relevance to the facts of the present case, and the question that is required to be determined in this case. That rule nowhere says that even if a clerk/clerk-typist fails to pass the post-training examination for all the cumber of permissible chances, his service would not be terminated but the only effect would be that he would lose his seniority. That rule in no way assists the submission sought to be made by Mr. Supehia. ( 27 ) ). Mr. Supehia nextly submitted that the petitioner having been selected by the Competent Selection Committee, she now cannot be compelled to appear at the post-training examination and to pass it. The submission is required to be stated merely for being rejected. The Training and Examination rules make it obligatory for the petitioner to pass the post-training examination. Even the appointment order Annexure b clearly states that the petitioner would have to take the training prescribed for the clerks and thereafter would have to pass the post-training examination. This appointment order was issued to the petitioner after she came to be selected by the Competent Selection Committee. Therefore, the submission that as she has been selected by the Competent Selection Committee, she cannot now be compelled to pass the post-training examination made on behalf of the petitioner, cannot be accepted. ( 28 ) ). Mr. Supehia, relied upon the appointment order Annexure b, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is a regular junior clerk, and submitted that as the appointment is a regular appointment, it cannot now be terminated on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the post-training examination. This argument is also devoid of any merit. The word regular is used in the opening para of the appointment order in contradistinction to the irregular appointment which the petitioner was holding before she came to be appointed under Annexure b. The word regular as used in Annexure b has no other significance. That word regular as used in the appointment order would not confer upon the petitioner any right to say that she would be exempt from passing the post-training examination. That word regular as used in the appointment order would not confer upon the petitioner any right to say that she would be exempt from passing the post-training examination. As a matter of fact, the appointment order Annexure b, which is a composite order makes it clear that the petitioner would have to receive the pre-service training and pass the post-training examination. Therefore, the use of the word regular in the appointment order cannot help the petitioner to argue that now she cannot be obliged to pass the post-training examination, and her services cannot be terminated, if she fails to pass such examination. ( 29 ) ). Mr. Supehia relied upon Rule 29 of the DRP Rules and contended that just as in Rule 29, while regularising the services of irregular appointees, exemption to pass the post-training examination is granted in favour of the persons who have rendered not less than two years of continuous service as clerks/clerk-typists, similar exemption should have been granted to the petitioner and persons similarly situated to the petitioner who had rendered less than two years continuous service. I think this submission has no merit. This submission is covered by the first submission of Mr. Supehia so vehemently made by him while trying to argue that Annexure d is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. I have hereinabove dealt with that contention, and it is not necessary for me to repeat once again, all what i have said while dealing with the first submission of Mr. Supehia. Suffice it would be to say that the argument sought to be made by Mr. Supehia on the basis of Rule 29 of the DRP Rules, does not have any merit. ( 30 ) ). When this petition was taken up for hearing, Mr. Supehia moved an amendment in the petition. The amendment was granted, and the petitioner amended the petition. On the basis of the amendment in the petition, Mr. Supehia contended that the petitioner has not exhausted all the chances available to her to pass the post-training examination. The submission has no merit whatsoever for, as indicated hereinabove, the maximum number of chances available to a candidate would be 3 + 2 = 5. Three as of right and two upon the specific orders passed by the Government. Supehia contended that the petitioner has not exhausted all the chances available to her to pass the post-training examination. The submission has no merit whatsoever for, as indicated hereinabove, the maximum number of chances available to a candidate would be 3 + 2 = 5. Three as of right and two upon the specific orders passed by the Government. It was admitted at the time of hearing of this petition that the petitioner has already exhausted all the five chances and has failed at all the five chances. There is, therefore, no scope for arguing that the petitioner has not exhausted all the five chances to appear at and pass the post-training examination. ( 31 ) ). Mr. Supehia submitted that the petitioner has made one further representation to the Government to give her one more chance to appear at and pass the post-training examination, and that representation having been forwarded by the I. G. of Police to the Government, it must be held that she has not exhausted all the chances to appear at and pass the post-training examination. This argument has also no merit. Merely because the I. G. of police has forwarded the petitioners representation to the Government, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not exhausted all her chances to appear at and pass the post-training examination. I have referred to the Training and examination Rules hereinabove, and they make it clear that even the government has no powers to grant more than two additional chances to a candidate to pass the examination. In the case of the petitioner, even those two additional chances have been availed of by the petitioner. The Government, therefore, has no power to grant the third additional chance to the petitioner. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner in her representation prayed for a third additional chance, would be no ground for saying that she has not exhausted all the permissible chances to appear at and pass the post-training examination. ( 32 ) ). In the petition, by amendment, it was also sought to be contended that as per the information of the petitioner, the State Government has granted more than five chances to the clerks like the petitioner to pass the examination, This contention is absolutely vague and devoid of any merit, and Mr. Supehia has not pressed this contention into service at the time of arguments. Supehia has not pressed this contention into service at the time of arguments. ( 33 ) ). In the result, none of the submissions made by Mr. Supehia, has any merit. The petition is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief vacated. ( 34 ) ). At the request of Mr. Supehia, the interim relief granted by this Court by its order dated 15/03/1984, staying the termination order is continued upto 31/10/1991. .