PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in all the matters are servants of the State working in its Revenue Department and they entered the said service in the position of Clerks. The recruitment to the said post was done under Gujarat non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerk-Typists, and Typists Recruitment Examination rules, 1970. These Rules refer to Pre-service Training and Post-Training examination, ideally speaking, only on successfully getting through the examination, a candidate will be appointed as a Clerk in different Departments of the State. However, gradually, this situation came to develop as to appointment preceding the Training, much less, therefore, a question of post-training examination preceding the appointment. ( 2 ) IN course of time, there happened to be the situation where the posttraining examination may have taken place after some time, may be number of years and if the candidate in question has been allocated to the Revenue department, further on he has to appear at the Revenue Sub-service Departmental examination (hereinafter referred to as SSD Examination) governed by 1971 rules. These Rules came into force with effect from 1/02/1971. The importance of this Rule for the persons working in the lower Division of subordinate Revenue Service is that without passing the same, he cannot appear at the Revenue Qualifying Examination which is a must for being promoted to higher post. This Revenue Qualifying Examination subsequently came to be bifurcated into two, namely, Lower Revenue Qualifying Examination (hereinafter referred to as LRQE) and Higher Revenue Qualifying Examination. In the case before us, we are concerned with this LRQE for which in the year 1978 Rules came to be framed. ( 3 ) IN the said Rules, there is a reference to a person who has already completed 5 years service on the appointed date, but was not permitted to appear at the examination under the Old Rules and was given some chances as per sub-rule 22, the details of which are not material for our purpose. There is reference to seniority in sub-rule 2 of the Rules 6 and 7 read with its proviso. ( 4 ) THE petitioners in all these petitions have disputed the stand taken by the State Government as to the fixation of their seniority. The claim advanced in all the petitions except Special Civil Application No. 101 of 1987 is that their seniority should be fixed from the date of their joining service. ( 4 ) THE petitioners in all these petitions have disputed the stand taken by the State Government as to the fixation of their seniority. The claim advanced in all the petitions except Special Civil Application No. 101 of 1987 is that their seniority should be fixed from the date of their joining service. The petitioners of petition No. 101 of 1987 have claimed seniority from the date of their passing the Post-Training (Pre-Service) Examination or in the alternative, from the date of joining service as per Rule 21 of the recruitment Examination Rules, 1970. The relevant Rule 21 has been extracted at page 40 of Special Civil Application no. 101 of 1987 which is hereinafter referred to as the main petition. ( 5 ) ON going through the said Rule 21 at page 40 of the main petition, it becomes at once clear that it refers to batch-wise seniority and provides for candidates who appear at the examination on completion of the training prior to their entering into service. Strictly speaking, this will not be of much help in resolving the controversy with reference to LRQE 1978. Otherwise also, in our opinion, the State Government has strictly contended that this being General Rule of Recruitment, it will apply to the candidates, who enter into the Government service for the first time, irrespective of the Department to which they have been allocated. On going through the aforesaid direct recruitment Rules, we find the provision of Centralised Recruitment Scheme, the details of which can be had from Rule 3. The selection is necessarily meant for all the Departments of the State, except for the offices that have been mentioned in Appendix a to the Rule. They are only 12 in number, being Department of Secretariat, GPSC, Vigilance Commission, Legislature secretariat, Judicial Courts and others. ( 6 ) WE, therefore, agree with the submission of learned Counsel Miss Doshit appearing for the respondents that Rule 21 will not govern the seniority of the present petitioners, after their recruitment under the aforesaid Recruitment examination Rules, 1970 have been allocated to the Revenue Department. ( 6 ) WE, therefore, agree with the submission of learned Counsel Miss Doshit appearing for the respondents that Rule 21 will not govern the seniority of the present petitioners, after their recruitment under the aforesaid Recruitment examination Rules, 1970 have been allocated to the Revenue Department. In our opinion, she is right in submitting that if at all their seniority is to be determined it will have to be according to the Rules that are prevalent in the Revenue Department and in absence of the Rules, the Government can determine the seniority on the basis of Notification or resolution. The definite stand of the respondents is that there are no such Rules. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, when we turn to those SSD Rules, it becomes clear that they do control seniority. As the Rules originally stood, Rule 4 provided for discharge from service for failure to pass the examination within the specified chances during the specified period. There were only two chances available to a given candidate with one more referred to in proviso to Rule 4 with the details of which we an; not concerned. There is second proviso to Rule 4 which saves the candidates who were recruited prior to the appointed date, from appearing at the examination. However, disability is that they will not be eligible for confirmation, nor will they be able to appear at the Revenue qualifying Examination. ( 8 ) THE appointed date is none else, but the date on which the Rules came into force, namely, 1-2-1971. ( 9 ) THE Rules came to be amended and as on the date with which we are concerned, the aforesaid Rule 4 of Subordinate Revenue Service reads as under :"4 (1) If a person appointed on or after the appointed date to a lower division of subordinate revenue service fails to pass the examination within the specified chances or within the specified period. his increment shall after the expiry of specified chances or specified period be withheld until he passes the examination and he shall not be eligible for appearing at the Revenue Qualifying Examination for promotion to higher post. (2) Any increment withheld under sub-rule (1) shall become payable to him from the date on which he passes the examination and all future incremsnts shall accrue to him, as if no increment had been withheld. (2) Any increment withheld under sub-rule (1) shall become payable to him from the date on which he passes the examination and all future incremsnts shall accrue to him, as if no increment had been withheld. Provided however, that such person shall not be entitled to claim the arrears of pay which were lost to him by reason of the increments having been withheld. Explanation :- For the purpose of releasing the withheld increments the date of passing the examination means the date following the date on which the examination ends. (3) If a candidate appointed to the lower division of subordinate Revenue Service prior to the appointed date, fails to pass the examination within the specified chances or specified period. he shall not be eligible for confirmation in the Lower Division of subordinate Revenue Service and shall also not be eligible for appearing at the revenue Qualifying Examination for promotion to higher posts "on going through the aforesaid Rule, it becomes at once clear that apart from discharge from service, disability imposed is only of withholding of increments and the same shall be available except for actual payment from the date the employee has passed the examination. The moment this aspects is borne in mind, it means, in our opinion, that it has a reference to the date of joining. ( 10 ) INCREMENT, as rightly referred to on behalf of the respondents in affidavitin- reply page 83 onwards, filed by one Mr. T. N. Parekh, is to be paid on yearly interval or at any other periodicity that may be prescribed. From the date of service after one year in the instant case, increment would be payable and till the SSD examination is successfully completed by a given candidate, after exhaustion of the prescribed chances which by the time would become 3, the further earning of increment will be withheld. On clearing the examination, the ban on the increment will be lifted with a disability that there will be no financial payment. In other words, notional increment from the date of passing of the examination shall be paid to the candidate on the basis of his having earned income. The only effect is that there is a financial loss in the intervening period to the extent of amounts of the increment. This is a clear cut element of continuous service from the date of joining. The only effect is that there is a financial loss in the intervening period to the extent of amounts of the increment. This is a clear cut element of continuous service from the date of joining. In other words, the doctrine of continuous offlciation has been allowed to have full play. ( 11 ) AS per Government Resolutions Annexures h and hi, pages 72, 74 and 75 respectively, at present the Government is working out the respective seniority. Subsequent effect of said amendment in Rule 4 (3) will be adverted to thereafter. As per the government Resolution dated 6/09/1962 Annexure h, the seniority till then was being determined on the basis of pay. On passing of SSD Examination, the candidate was confirmed as Clerk and again his seniority was fixed amongst confirmed clerks on the basis of his pay. It has created anomaly and therefore, by this resolution, it was decided that there should be seniority initially fixed of temporary clerks with reference to the date of his continuou service and the list thus prepared should be given English Alphabet "a" and it was known as list "a". The seniority of confirmed Clerk was to be maintained as per list b which was to be fixed on the basis of the passing of SSD Examination and by the rank obtained therein if the date of passing of the examination was the same. Needless to say, the confirmation depended on passing of the Sub-service Examination. ( 12 ) LATER on as per Annexure hi, Resolution dated 8-10-1975, the said 1982 G. R. came to be amended. As per this amendment the seniority list a, i. e. , Temporary Clerks, was to be fixed with reference to the date of continuous service of a given candidate. If there was an occasion to give temporary promotion from amongst the temporary SSD Examination and given temporary promotion and this preference was against the temporary Clerks who had not cleared the SSD Examination, for this purpose, a separate list al was to be maintained. The Seniority list of Clerks in al list was fixed on the passing of SSD Examination and if the date of passing of the examination was the same, rank obtained therein was to govern the ranking in the seniority list. The Seniority list of Clerks in al list was fixed on the passing of SSD Examination and if the date of passing of the examination was the same, rank obtained therein was to govern the ranking in the seniority list. In this background if we read the aforesaid amendment of Rule 4 of the SSD Examination, as indicated above, the effect would be that on passing of the examination, not only the candidate will become eligible for appearing at LRQE but will get his increment released and therefore, there will come into play the doctrine of continuous officiating. ( 13 ) MRS. Mehta had pointed out the General Administration Department notification dated 15/02/1985 which is at page 23 of Special Civil application No. 7786 of 1990, whereby the Recruitment Examination Rules, 1970, Rule 8 thereof, came to be amended and after sub-rule 2, sub-rule 3 came to be added which reads as under : "a candidate who is appointed as a Clerk or a Clerk-Typist subject to undergoing training and/or passing the examination shall get seniority from the date of joining service, if he completes the post-Training and passes the examination as prescribed in Rule 7 within three chances (Four chances in case of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled tribe candidates) : provided that Seniority of a candidate as referred to above shall be counted from the date of passing of the post-training examination, if he fails to pass the examination as prescribed in Rule 7 within three chances (four chances in case of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate ). Corresponding change was made in Rule 21 of the Recruitment Examination rules, 1970 and sub-rule 3 was inserted which reads as under :"the seniority of a candidate appointed as a Clerk or Clerk-Typist, subject to undergoing training and/or passing the examination, shall be determined as per the provisions of Rule 8 (3) of the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks and Clerk-Typists (Training and Examination) Rules, 1970. "the aforesaid amendment to Rule 21 was as per Government Notification dated 15-2-1985. Afterwards, the Government came out with Circulars dated 19-6-1986 and 21/07/1986 respectively at pages 26 and 28 of the said petition No. 7786 of 1990. If conjoint reading of all these 4 documents clearly indicates that the date of joining will govern the fixation of seniority. "the aforesaid amendment to Rule 21 was as per Government Notification dated 15-2-1985. Afterwards, the Government came out with Circulars dated 19-6-1986 and 21/07/1986 respectively at pages 26 and 28 of the said petition No. 7786 of 1990. If conjoint reading of all these 4 documents clearly indicates that the date of joining will govern the fixation of seniority. This was required obviously because the candidates recruited as Typists were not required to undergo any training, nor were they required to pass the post-training Examination. When persons recruited as Clerks,clerk-cum-Typists or as Typists were sought to be equated for the purpose of future promotion and other incidental events of service life, the aforesaid difficulties were felt and therefore, amendments were made and further, it was clarified by the Government tint these amendments are to be given effect to prospcctively and they will not operate retrospectively. ( 14 ) MISS Doshit had submitted that when the Government had clarified that these amendments were not to operate retrospectively, it would mean that the persons who are already recruited cannot get the benefit thereof. They would continue to be governed by the respective Rules as they existed prior to the amendment. Apart from the fact that this situation would end up into a decotomy of bringing into existence two sets of employees, one recruited prior to the amendment and one thereafter. It would also create continuation of two sets of seniority. The event of fixation of seniority as and when it arises will be governed by the Rules that are existed at the time when the event has occurred. After the amendment, if seniority is required to be fixed, Rules including the amendment should be allowed to have full play, then only, the real position could emerge.- to allow the things to opsrate in the manner suggested by the respondent-State would not only continue the said decotomy but would bring about many anomalies in future. ( 15 ) APART from this, the very concept of seniority admits of it being reshuffled from time to time, according to the circumstances that might exist at a given point of time. Whatever may be the reason for bringing about the amendment, the effect thereof cannot be restricted only to the case contemplated. This submission of Miss Doshit therefore, cannot be accepted. Whatever may be the reason for bringing about the amendment, the effect thereof cannot be restricted only to the case contemplated. This submission of Miss Doshit therefore, cannot be accepted. ( 16 ) IN short, the say of the respondent-State is that in absence of Rules, they can govern the seniority of candidates by executive directions and on the one hand, the framing of Recruitment Rules would be affecting seniority batchwise and those Rules will have no bearing on fixation of seniority in a given department of the State of Gujarat. ( 17 ) HOWEVER, the aforesaid reference to the amendment in the Direct recruitment Procedure Rules as well as training Rules clearly indicates falling back upon the Rule of continuous officiation and same is the position in Subservice examination Rules. In either event, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the seniority is being fixed on the basis of the date of entering into the service and regulated thereafter on the basis of the continuous officiation. ( 18 ) IN the result, the petitioners would succeed in the respective petitions and the challenge that they have put forth in connection with respective seniority list will have to be upheld. The respective seniority lists and the reversion only based on these lists are therefore, struck down. The respondents are directed to refix the seniority on the basis of continuous officiation within a period of 3 months and thereafter, work out the consequences of these readjustments in accordance with the Rules. Rule in each of these petitions is made absolute accordingly. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. .