Judgment :- Petitioners are assistants/ grade I in the Kerala Secretariat Service. Respondents 2 and 3 also belong to that category. They are impleaded in a representative capacity. First petitioner claims seniority over the second respondent and sixth petitioner claims to be the senior of the third respondent. Petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 were originally recruited as Assistant Grade II and they were promoted later as Assistant Grade I. For promotion satisfactory probation and passing of two tests are necessary. Tests are Secretariat Manual Test and Account Test (Lower). Case of the petitioners is that the specified period of probation being three years and as their probation was declared within the said period there is no justification in conferring seniority to respondents 2 and 3 over them on the ground that they were test qualified earlier to the petitioners. 2. Commencement of probation of the first petitioner was on 2-12-1978 and his probation was declared on 3-12-1980. Test qualifications were acquired by him on 7-7-1981. Second petitioner's period of probation commenced on 6-12-1978. Probation was declared on 9-1-1981 and he acquired test qualifications on 14-7-1981. Third petitioner's probation commenced on 2-12-1978, his probation was declared on 2-12-1980 and test qualifications were acquired on 14-7-1981. Fourth petitioner commenced her service on 8-3-1979 and her probation was declared on 4-4-1981. Test qualifications were acquired by her on 13-1-1982. Fifth petitioner commenced service on 19-3-1981. Probation was declared on 25-3-1983. Test qualifications were acquired on 15-74983. Sixth petitioner's probation commenced on 20-5-1981, probation was declared on 13-6-1983 and test qualifications were acquired on 15-7-1983. 3. Petitioners contended that all of them obtained test qualifications within the period of three years and as the Special Rules allow them that much time for declaration of probation and as all of them have acquired test qualifications within the said period promotion given to respondents 2 and 3 overlooking their seniority cannot have any justification. In short, petitioners contend that merely because respondents 2 and 3 and similarly placed officers who were juniors to them had obtained test qualifications earlier they cannot get seniority over the former. 4. In short, petitioners contend that merely because respondents 2 and 3 and similarly placed officers who were juniors to them had obtained test qualifications earlier they cannot get seniority over the former. 4. R.10(i) of the Kerala Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules provides that every person appointed to a category shall from the date on which he joins duty be on probation if he is appointed by direct recruitment or by transfer for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. Relying on R.10(i) petitioners contended that their probation having been declared within a period of three years of entry into service and as they have obtained test qualifications within that period their juniors who acquired test qualifications earlier should not have been promoted ignoring their seniority. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on R.12 also to hold that the petitioners were en titled to three years 'period to pass the Secretariat Manual Test and Account Test (Lower) this being the prescribed period of probation. It is argued that as R.12 provides for the acquisition of the tests within the prescribed period of probation and as the petitioners have obtained test qualifications during the prescribed period of probation they should not have been superseded on the ground that respondents 2 and 3 and similarly placed officers had acquired test qualifications earlier to them. Counsel relied on R.2 in Part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 and argued that the Special Rules applicable to any particular service shall prevail over the provision in the general rules and therefore Ext. P13 order cannot be sustained. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners did not pass Account Test (Lower) at the time when vacancy arose and so their juniors who were qualified and whose probation was declared were promoted and therefore the petitioners cannot complain about it. It is further contended that though the petitioners had completed probation within the prescribed period of three years they have not passed Account Test (Lower) when respondents 2 and 3 and others were promoted on attaining test qualifications. In other words, contention of the respondents is that persons having Account Test qualifications have to be promoted when vacancy arose and the respondents who were test qualified were promoted while the petitioners were not test qualified. 6. In other words, contention of the respondents is that persons having Account Test qualifications have to be promoted when vacancy arose and the respondents who were test qualified were promoted while the petitioners were not test qualified. 6. Though the petitioners have satisfactorily completed probation during the prescribed period of three years as provided under R.10 of the Special Rules, they did not acquire the Account Test qualification at the time when vacancy arose and when respondents 2 and 3 were promoted. As the completion of probation is prescribed to enable the appointing authority to decide whether the probationer is suitable for full membership or not, a pass in the Account Test qualification is prescribed for promotion to higher category. Date of completion of Account Test is therefore relevant while considering the promotion of an Assistant Grade II to Grade I. Promotion can be given only to a person who has passed Account Test (Lower). As the petitioners were not qualified for promotion on the date of occurrence of the vacancy as they did not pass Account Test (Lower), their contention that they have been wrongly superseded cannot be accepted. 7. Though the petitioners completed the probation within the prescribed period, they were not qualified with a pass in the Account Test (Lower) when respondents 2 and 3 and similarly placed officers were promoted as Assistant Grade I on a regular basis. There is nothing on record to hold that the petitioners were not considered for promotion as Assistant Grade I against any vacancy which arose after they qualified in the Account Test (Lower). It is the specific case of the respondents that petitioners were promoted as Assistants Grade I with effect from the day following the last date of the whole examination as provided under R.28(bb) of the K.S.& S.S.R. Petitioners do not have a case that any of their juniors was promoted after they acquired test qualifications. 8. Contention of the petitioners that their juniors should not have been promoted on a regular basis during the currency of the three years' period of their appointment is not tenable. As the petitioners did not pass Account Test (Lower) which is very essential for promotion, they cannot have any grievance against the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 and similarly placed officers who obtained test qualifications earlier than them. As the petitioners did not pass Account Test (Lower) which is very essential for promotion, they cannot have any grievance against the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 and similarly placed officers who obtained test qualifications earlier than them. Merely because an outer period of three years has been fixed for completion of probation and simply because the petitioners acquired test qualifications within the said period respondents 2 and 3 who acquired test qualifications earlier cannot be overlooked when the promotion avenue opened. 9. R.2 of Part II of K.S.& S.S.R. has only stated that if any provision in the general rules is repugnant to a provision in the special rules applicable to any particular service contained in Part III, the latter shall in respect of that service, prevail over the provisions in the general rules in this part. Petitioners could not point out the repugnancy of any provision in the general rules as against special rules. 10. Contention of the petitioners that they completed probation well within the stipulated period of three years and acquired the requisite test qualifications for promotion during the total period of three years which is the outer limit statutorily permitted and so they should not have been superseded by their juniors on the ground that they acquired test qualifications earlier if accepted would lead to confusion and disorder in the service. There is no rule that a person who obtained necessary test qualifications earlier than another should wait for his promotion until the expiry of the three years prescribed for probation even when a vacancy arose in the higher category. Though the petitioners have completed the probation, they were not test qualified when respondents 2 and 3 and similarly placed officers were promoted as Assistant Grade I on regular basis. That being the position, petitioners cannot have any grievance. Moreover, they have no case that they were denied promotion even after they passed the Account Test (Lower). There is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that their juniors should not have been promoted on a regular basis during the currency of the three years' period of their appointment as the said period is for completion of probation in terms of duty and to decide the suitability to hold the post of the Assistant Grade II. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that their juniors should not have been promoted on a regular basis during the currency of the three years' period of their appointment as the said period is for completion of probation in terms of duty and to decide the suitability to hold the post of the Assistant Grade II. To sum up, when respondents 2 and 3 and similarly placed officers were promoted from Assistant Grade II to Grade I, petitioners were not test qualified and so the latter cannot claim seniority over the former. There is no merit in the writ petition. The O.P. is dismissed. No costs.