K. G. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE two petitioners are serving in the State of Gujarat-Respondent No. 1 herein - as Assistant Conservators of Forests. They belong to Scheduled Castes. They were selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission and their names were recommended for appointment to the posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests Thereafter they were sent for training in the State Forest Service College Dehradun for attending training course that was conducted during the years 1985-87 (from 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1987 ). They successfully completed the course and they passed the examination taken by the State Forest Service College in March 1987 The result of the said examination was declared on 31 1987 As stated in the petition after the petitioners were declared successful at the aforesaid examination they on April 4 1987 reported for duty to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Vadodara. Government of Gujarat by its resolution dated October 14 1987 created 16 supernumerary posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests and by the order dated October 19 1987 the petitioners were appointed as assistant Conservators of Forests. The appointment order dated October 19 1987 inter alia stated that the petitioners were appointed on the supernumerary posts created by the Government and the services of the petitioners rendered by them on such supernumerary posts shall not be counted towards their seniority. However their services for seniority will be counted only from the date they get regular appointment on the post of Assistant Conservator of forests. At the time the petitioners came to be appointed on the aforesaid posts they were required to give an undertaking that they agree to accept the appointment on the aforesaid term and condition viz that the services rendered by them on the supernumerary posts shall not count towards their seniority. Accordingly the petitioners while accepting the appointment under the order dated October 19 1987 gave such undertakings. The aforesaid appointment order dated October 19 1987 is at Annexure-C to the petition. According to the petitioners after they joined services as Assistant Conservator of forests under the appointment order dated October 19 1987 they have passed the prescribed departmental examinations in June 1990 according to the petitioners they have thus performed the services as Assistant Conservator of Forests for the period from April 1 1985 till the dated of filing of the present petition. I mention here this petition came to be filed on July 27 1983 It is the case of the petitioners that therefore they have put in the more that 8 years in service as assistant Conservator of Forests. In para 3. 4 of the petition the petitioners have referred to the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Gujarat forest Service) Recruitment rules 1987 (for short Recruitment Rules ). Than in that paragraph they had also referred to the Government policy of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes even in the matter of promotion as spelt out in the Government Resolution dated january 31 1976 According to the petitioners even though in the matter of promotion the reservation policy has been adopted by Government of Gujarat under the government Resolution dated January 31 1976 till 1987 none of the candidates belonging to the reserved category i. e. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was promoted (to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests.) The petitioners have then referred to the promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests (for Short hereinafter referred to as DCF) given to Shri M. V. Parmar Shri I. A. Chauhan and Shri N. L. Desai in November 1991 under the High Courts orders. The petitioners ever that even after grtanting promotions to the post of DCF to Shri M. V. Parmar Shri I. A. Chauhan and Shri N. L. Desai there still remained backlog of one post which ought to go to the Scheduled Castes candidate but that was not filled in. Then the petitioners have referred to the Special Civil Application filed by Shri S. M. Dubey and Shri H. K. Patal working as Assistant Conservators of Forests (for short ACF) for fixation of seniority of the direct recruits vis-a-vis the promotees. From that petition being Special Civil Application No. 896 of 1991 arose Letters Patent Appeals No. 195 and 196 of 1993 wherein Civil Application No. 880 of 1983 was filled and in that Civil Application the Letters Patent Bench of this Court permitted the State Government to promote 18 persons as DCF from amongst the ACFs who are of proved merit and efficiency and who have put in at least 8 years of service including their training period in the Forests Training College. By that order the court also made it clear that the selection is not to be made only on the basis of any seniority list and the appointment (on the promotional post) shall be purely ad hoc and temporary and subject of the further order that may be passed by the Court in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals. Thus under the orders passed by this Court in C. A. No. 880 of 1993 referred to hereinabove the State Government was permitted to promoted 18 persons as DCFs from amongst the ACFs having proved merit and efficiency and who have put in at least 8 years of service including the training period and those promotions were not to be made only on the basis of purely ad hoc and temporary and subject to the further orders that might come to be passed by the court in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals. According to the petitioner the State Government is going to effect promotions of 18 ACFs and according to them in such promotions also the reservation ratio should be applicable and applying such ratio two more posts are required to be filled in by implementing the reservation policy granting promotions to the Scheduled Castes ACFs and as the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Castes they are in line for promotion. It is the grievance of the petitioners that their inquiry has revealed that the Respondents State is not giving effect to 18 ACFs to the posts DCFs though is backlog. ( 2 ) THUS the petitioner in this petition challenge the so called inaction on the part of the State Government in not following the reservation Policy and in not considering the petitioners for promotion to the posts of DCFs when the State is permitted by the Court to effect promotion of 18 ACFs to the posts of DCFs as violative of the constitutional guarantees and reservation policy. ( 3 ) ON the aforesaid contentions the petitioners in the petition prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the Respondents-State to consider their claim for promotion to the post of DCFs alongwith the consideration of the cases for promotion as per the interim order made by this Court in Civil Application No. 880 of 1993 in the above referred Letters Patent Appeals. ( 4 ) THE petitioners impleaded the State Government and Gujarat Public Service Commission as the Respondents. Thereafter Shri R. B. Zala has joined the petition as Respondents no. 3 It appears that Shri R. B. Zala is one of the ACFs who is aspiring to get promotion on the post of DCF in the general category under the interim orders passed by this Court in C. A. No. 880 of 1993. ( 5 ) THE State of Gujarat-Respondent No. 1 has tendered the affidavit-in-reply sworn by its Under Secretary Shri. J. F. Dave. Respondent No. 3 has also filed his affidavit-in-reply by which he has strongly opposed this petition. Therein he has set out the history of various other litigations. On behalf of the petitioners affidavit-in-rejoinder sworn by petitioner no. 2 has been filed and an affidavit-in-surrejoinder has been filed by Respondent no. 3. I will refer to the relevant parts of the aforesaid affidavits as and when necessary in the course of this judgment ( 6 ) SHRI S. V. Parmar L. A. for the petitioners firstly relied upon Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules which have been framed by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. That Rule 2 reads as follows:2 Appointment to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests Gujarat Forest Service Class-I shall be made by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons holding the posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests. Gujarat Forest Service Class-II and who have put in at least eight years service (including training period in the Forest College) on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests:provided that where an appointing authority is satisfied that person having an experience specified above is not available for promotion and that it is in public interest to fill up the post by promotion of a person having experience for lesser period it may for reasons to be recorded in writing promote such person who has experience for a period not less than two thirds of the period specified above. Mr. Parmar has firstly relied upon the main body of Rule 2 and contended that the petitioners have put in eight years of service as ACFs and are therefore eligible to be promoted to the post of DCFs if they are found to be persons of proved merit and efficiency. Therefore according to Mr. Mr. Parmar has firstly relied upon the main body of Rule 2 and contended that the petitioners have put in eight years of service as ACFs and are therefore eligible to be promoted to the post of DCFs if they are found to be persons of proved merit and efficiency. Therefore according to Mr. Parmar the Respondent State is bound to consider the cases of the petitioners for the purpose of promotion to the post of DCFs at the time when it proposes to promote 18 persons to the posts of DCFs from amongst the ACFs under the interim orders passed by this Court as stated above. The contention that the petitioners have put in 8 years of service as ACFs is strongly opposed by the State as also by Respondent No. 3. It has therefore become necessary for me to consider this aspect of the matter. The petitioners were recommended by the Gujarat Public Service Commission for appointment to the posts of ACFs. They joined the pre-service training course at the State Forest Training College at Dehradun for the period between April 1 1985 and March 31 1987 This period between April 1 1985 and March 31 1987 will be the first spell of period which will be relevant for deciding the first controversy between the parties on the question whether the petitioners have completed 8 years of service as contemplated by the main body of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules. The second spell of time is between April 1 1987 and October 19 1987 It is the petitioners case that the result of their post-training examination was declared on March 31 1987 and thereafter they on April 4 1987 reported to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for duty. It is undisputed that in April 1987 and for quite some months thereafter there were no posts of ACFs available in the State Forest Service on which the petitioners and others who underwent the training at Dehradun and elsewhere and completed it successfully could have been given appointments and postings. This was particularly due to the various litigations going on in the High Court during that time. This was particularly due to the various litigations going on in the High Court during that time. But the fact remained that between April 1 1987 and October 14 1987 it was just not possible for the State Government to appoint the petitioners on the posts of ACFs for want of vacant available posts on which appointments and postings of the petitioners and persons similarly situated to them could have been made. . The Government therefore on October 14 1987 created 16 supernumerary posts of ACFs and by an order dated October 19 1987 the Government appointed the petitioners and some others to posts of ACFs on those newly created 16 suppernumerary posts of ACFs on a condition that the services rendered by those appointees on the supernumerary posts shall not count for their seniority and their services which shall count for their seniority would be only those rendered by them from the time they get regular appointment on the posts of ACFs and undertaking accepting this condition was also obtained from the petitioners. This spell of time between April 1 1987 and October 19 1987 is the second spell of time which is relevant for the determination of the question at issue. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER the Government by the order dated December 15 1989 appointed 16 persons including the two petitioners as ACFs in regular vacancies and in that order dated December 15 1989 also the State Government informed the petitioners and other ACFs that their seniority in the cadre of ACFs will be counted from the date of their regular appointment as per their agreement given at the time of their appointment on the supernumerary posts vide Office order dated October 19 1987 thus the third spell of time relevant for consideration in this case is between October 19 1987 and December 15 1989 the fourth spell of time which is relevant for consideration in this case is between December 15 1989 and July 27 1993 the date on which this petition came to be filed. ( 8 ) I will refer to the aforesaid four spells of time as the first spell second spell third spell and fourth spell respectively. ( 8 ) I will refer to the aforesaid four spells of time as the first spell second spell third spell and fourth spell respectively. ( 9 ) IT was not in dispute before me that the first spell of time i. e. the period between April 1 1985 and March 31 1987 would certainly count towards the service of the petitioners as ACFs on the plain reading of the main body of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules which while prescribing minimum eight years of service includes the training period in he Forest College. Thus there is no difficulty in saying that this first spell of two years between April 1 1985 and March 31 1987 should count towards the service of the petitioners as ACFs. ( 10 ) SIMILARLY so far as the fourth spell of time i. e. between december 15 1989 and July 27 1993 (the date on which this petition came to be filed ) there is no controversy that spell of time should also count towards the service of the petitioners as ACFs for the purpose of counting eight years service as contemplated by the main body of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules. According to the Respondents however the second and third spells of time have to be excluded while computing the period of service of the petitioners for the purpose of the main body of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules. According to the Respondents neither the period between April 1 1987 (when the petitioners completed the training and passed the examination) and October 19 1987 (the date on which they came to be appointed on the supernumerary posts of ACFs) nor the period between October 19 1989 and December 15 1989 (the dale on which the petitioners came to be appointed on regular vacancies) can be counted for computing the period of 8 years service contemplated by the main body of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules. ( 11 ) IT is not in dispute before me that if either or both of these two spells of time i. e. the second and the third spells are excluded from computation on the day of filing of the petition the petitioners had not completed 8 years of service as contemplated by the main body of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules Computing from April 1 1985 to July 27 1993 the total period comes to 8 years 3 months and 27 days Therefore if either of the two periods i. e. the second and the third spells or both of them are excluded from this period of 8 years 3 months and 27 days the petitioners services will fall short of 8 years ( 12 ) AS I will presently point out that taking any view of the matter the second spell of time between April 1 1987 and October 10 1987 (say October 18 1987 cannot count towards the service rendered by the petitioners as ACFs And once trial spell of 6 months and 18 days is excluded from consideration the petitioners service as on the date the petition came to be filed did fall short of 8 years In that view of the matter I do not think it is necessary for me to consider whether the third spell of time i. e. the period between October 19 1987 and December 15 1984 should or should not count towards the service of the petitioners as ACFs for the purpose of determining whether they have completed 8 years of service as contemplated by the main body of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules ( 13 ) IN order to contend that the second spell of time between April 1 1987 and October 19 1987 should also count towards the service of the petitioners for the purpose of determining whether they have completed 8 years service Mr. Parmar L. A. for the petitioners relied upon the definition of the word Duty in Rule 9 (16) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules (for short BCRs) and the notes theretobelow. In the submission of Mr. Parmar Duty includes joining time and the period between April 1. 1987 and October 19 1987 (say April 18 1987 should be considered to be joining time. He relied upon the note below clause (b) of Rule 9 (16) of BCRs. In the submission of Mr. Parmar Duty includes joining time and the period between April 1. 1987 and October 19 1987 (say April 18 1987 should be considered to be joining time. He relied upon the note below clause (b) of Rule 9 (16) of BCRs. Rule 9 (16) of BCRs defines the word Duty and says that duty includes. . . . . If a Government servant has handed over charge of a post on receipt of order s of transfer and if immediately thereafter the orders of transfer are held in abeyance or cancelled the period of compulsory waiting between the date of handing over charge and the date of resuming charge of file post should be treated as joining time. According to Mr. Parmar the second spell of time i. e. the period between April 1 1987 and October 18 1987 is the period of compulsory wailing for though the petitioners on April 4 1987 presented themselves before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for joining duly they were not given appointment and posting orders for no fault on their part According to him if the Government had no vacant posts on which the petitioners could have been appointed on April 4 1987 either on account of certain litigations pending between certain parties or for any other reasons and the Government took time of about 6 months and 14 days in creating supernumerary posts on which ultimately the petitioners came to be appointed the entire second spell of time of six months and 18 days should be considered to be the period of compulsory waiting for the petitioners and thus be treated to be joining time which under the definition would be duty. I think the submission of Mr. Parmar is wholly in-founded The concept of joining time in this case has no application whatsoever True the period of training for two years at Dehradun Forest College would obviously go towards the counting of period of duly of the petitioners as ACFs for it was a pre-service training and by the very wordings of the main body of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules that period has to be included. But then once the training period is over the period subsequent thereto will not count towards duty of the petitioners until the petitioners are given appointment posting and they resume their duty. But then once the training period is over the period subsequent thereto will not count towards duty of the petitioners until the petitioners are given appointment posting and they resume their duty. There is no automatic extension of time between the completion of the pre-service training and the date on which the petitioners actually resume duties on their being appointed on the posts in question for the purpose of computing the period of duty of the petitioners as ACFs. Even the note below Clause (b) of Rule 9 (16) of the BCSRs has no application here. That note would apply in case of Government servant who has handed over the charge of post on the receipt of the orders of his transfer and if immediately thereafter the orders of transfer are held in abeyance or cancelled. Here the petitioners case does not fall within the fact situation contemplated by the note below clause (b) of Rule 9 (16) of BCSRs. The petitioners have never been transferred from any place to any other place. There was no question of their having handed over the charge of any post at one place and having proceeded to take over the charge at some other place. There was no question of the orders of transfer having been kept in abeyance or cancelled. Therefore on the facts of the present case it can never be said that the second spell of time between April 1 1987 and October 18 1987 was a period of compulsory waiting of the petitioners. As a matter of fact the petitioners never performed any duly as ACFs prior to October 19 1987 It is because the training at Dehradun was a compulsory pre-service training that under the rules the period of training has to be counted towards the period of duty rendered by the petitioners as ACFs. It is because of the fiction created by the Rules that the first spell of time has to be counted as the period of duty rendered by the petitioners as ACFs. Otherwise even during the first spell of time the petitioners have never rendered any service. They were merely undergoing pre-service training during that period. It is because of the fiction created by the Rules that the first spell of time has to be counted as the period of duty rendered by the petitioners as ACFs. Otherwise even during the first spell of time the petitioners have never rendered any service. They were merely undergoing pre-service training during that period. During the second spell of time between April 1 1987 and October 18 1987 there was not any appointment order as ACFs in their favour there was not any posting order in their favour they had not resumed duty as ACFs at any station and as they had not performed any duty as ACFs at any station there was no question of any joining time or compulsory waiting. Therefore the second spell of time between April 1 1987 and October 18 1987 can never be taken into account while computing 8 years service of the petitioners as ACFs as contemplated by the main body of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules. The concept of joining time and the concept embodied in the Note below Clause (b) of Rule 9 (16) BCSRs in my opinion has no application to the facts of the case of the petitioners. ( 14 ) MR. Parmar nextly relied upon Note 4 below sub-clause (3) of Clause (c) of Rule 9 (16) BSCRs. That Note reads as follows:the period spent by candidates in the Excise and Prohibition Department for training and the interval between the completion of the course and their assumption of duty should be regarded as duty for the purpose of this rule. I fail to see how this Note 4 below sub-clause (3) of Clause (c) of Rule 9 (16) BCSRs can have any application to the facts of the present case. That Note applies to a candidate who has spent some period in the Excise and Prohibition Department for training. That Note can have no application to a person who has undergone training at the Forest Service College. The petitioners never were either under training or otherwise in the Excise and Prohibition Department. They were simply sent for training to the Forest Service College at Dehradun. The aforesaid Note therefore by no strech of reasoning can apply to their case. That Note can have no application to a person who has undergone training at the Forest Service College. The petitioners never were either under training or otherwise in the Excise and Prohibition Department. They were simply sent for training to the Forest Service College at Dehradun. The aforesaid Note therefore by no strech of reasoning can apply to their case. From all these facts I think Note 4 below sub-clause (3) of Clause (c) of Rule 9 (16) BCSRs has no application to the facts of this case. ( 15 ) IN the aforesaid view of the matter I am sure the second spell of time of 61 months and 18 days between April 1 1987 and October 19 1987 cannot be counted towards the service of the petitioners as ACFs for the purpose of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules. If that spell is excluded from counting towards the service of the petitioners undoubtedly on the day the petition was filed the petitioners services fell short of 8 years. That being the position on the day the petition came to be filed they were not eligible for promotion to the post of DCFs. I hold accordingly. ( 16 ) MR. Parmar nextly submitted that even if the petitioners services fell short of 8 years on the day the petition came to be filed or on the day the Respondents considered the case for promotion of 18 ACFs to the Posts of DCFs the provise to Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules should have been invoked by the Government. According to that proviso where an appointing authority is satisfied that a person having an experience of 8 years specified in the main body of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules is not available for promotion and that it is in public interest to fill up the post by promotion of a person having experience of less than 8 years it may for reasons to be recorded in writing promote such person who has experience for a period not less than two-thirds of the period specified above. According to Mr. According to Mr. Parmar the petitioners are Scheduled Caste Officers; therefore even while considering the matter from the stand-point of the proviso above-referred question of reservation should creep in and if on the day the question of promotion is taken up for consideration the appointing authority is satisfied that the persons belonging to the reserved categories having experience of 8 years are not available for promotion and that it is in the public interest to fill up the posts by promotion then the appointing authority should taking into consideration the reservation policy promote the reserved category employees to the higher posts of DCFs in relaxation of the 8 years service eligibility criteria. According to Mr. Parmar the two groups of persons are distinct - one is the general category persons and the other is reserved category persons. The petitioners belong to the reserved category persons as they belong to Scheduled Castes and if while effecting promotions on the quota meant for reserved category persons such reserved category persons having experience of 8 years are not available for promotion then upon the finding of the appointing authority that it is in public interest to fill up the posts by promotion the reserved category persons having experience of two-thirds of the period of 8 years should be promoted in preference to the general category employees. ( 17 ) IF the interpretation put by Mr. Parmar on the proviso is to be accepted one will have to read words in the proviso which are not there. The Recruitment Rules are framed by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The court while interpreting such rules I am afraid cannot read in such rules words which are not there. If the interpretation put by Mr. The Recruitment Rules are framed by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The court while interpreting such rules I am afraid cannot read in such rules words which are not there. If the interpretation put by Mr. Parmar is accepted one shall have to modify the proviso and read it as follows:provided that where an appointing authority is satisfied that (A) persons belonging to the general category when the promotion is to be given to the general category candidates; and (B) persons belonging to the reserved category when the promotion is to be given to the reserved category candidates;having the experience specified above are not available for promotion and that it is in public interest to fill up the post by promotion or a person having experience of lesser period it may for reasons to be recorded in writing promote such person belonging to - (A) general category; and (B) reserved categoryas the case may be who has experience for a period not less than two-thirds of the period specified above in my opinion such a modification of the Rule by judicial interpretative process is not permitted Therefore the submission of Mr. Parmar based on the proviso to Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules cannot be accepted. ( 18 ) EVEN assuming that the interpretation put by Mr. Parmar on the proviso to Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules is required to be accepted in view of the reservation policy adopted by the State Government as I will presently point out on the facts also even on the day the petition came to be filed the question of considering the reserved category candidates for promotion to the posts of DCFs could never have arisen Therefore also the petitioners have no case to argue that when the Government is considering or has completed the process of consideration of promoting 18 ACFs to the posts of DCFs they should also enter the zone of consideration and the Government should consider them and should promote them to the posts of DCFs ( 19 ) MR. B. B. Naik the learned Advocate for Respondent No 3 submitted that even assuming that the Government Policy of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates is applicable to the promotional post of DCFs from the post of ACFs as contended by Mr. B. B. Naik the learned Advocate for Respondent No 3 submitted that even assuming that the Government Policy of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates is applicable to the promotional post of DCFs from the post of ACFs as contended by Mr. Parmar that policy came into force prospectively with effect from February 12 1986 under the Govt. Resolution G. A. D dated February 12 1986 That Govt. Resolution was required to the issued by the Government pursuant to the recommendations made by the Sadhwani Committee which went into the question of various anomalies and discrepancies in the manner of implementation of the reservation policy In Chapter XI of the Report of Sadhwani Committee by recommendation no 2 the Committee recommended to the Government to reconsider the question of seniority and merits in relation to granting promotions After the Sadhwani Committee report was submitted there was a settlement arrived at between the representatives of the striking Government and Panchayat employees of Gujarat and the State on August 18 1985 Sadhwani Committee had in all made 11 recommendations The relevant part of the substance of recommendation no. 2. 2. I have just now referred to Under that settlement the Government accepted all the 11 recommendations contained in the report of the Sadhwani Committee with certain clarifications Under Clarification (a) it was stated that the recommendations (1) and (2) of the Sadhwani Committee are accepted in principle and necessary orders will be issued by the Government in consultation with the Legal Department and the representatives of the employees and these orders will have prospective effect it was in compliance of the aforesaid settlement that the Government issued the G R dated February 12 1986 wherein it is stated that after consideration and in pursuance of the G R dated January 31 1976 as amended from time to time the Government clarifies that whatever might be the standard application for promotion for any posts in the relevant Recruitment Rules the roster shall nonetheless be applicable Thus by this Government Resolution the roster and the reservation policy came to be applied in the matter of promotions for the first time from the date of the G. R. i. e. from February 12 1986 As seen above the Government had decided to accept recommendation No 2 of Sadhwani Committee with prospective effect This G R dated February 12 1986 will have therefore prospective affect; it will have no retrospective effect The G. R. says that in the matter of promotion roster shall apply whatever be the standard applicable for promotion in the relevant Recruitment Rules It is not the case of the petitioners that before February 12 1986 the reservation policy or the roster applied or was made applicable to reserved category employees in the matter of promotions. In this view of the matter the question of applicability of the reservation policy and roster would come into play only on and from February 12 1986 Respondent No. 3 has in his affidavit dated September 7 1993 (pages 55 to 60 while high -lighting this fact stated that after February 12 1986 the Government has not given promotion to the post of DCFs from amongst the general category employees till today. He has further stated that the Government has given nine promotions after February 12 1986 and out of those 9 promotions 6 promotions are given to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and 3 promotions are given to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. He has further stated that the Government has given nine promotions after February 12 1986 and out of those 9 promotions 6 promotions are given to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and 3 promotions are given to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. He has also stated that not a single candidate belonging to the general category is given the promotion to the post of DCFs and that the candidates belonging to the reserved categories are in excess and there is a backlog of general category candidates which is required to be filled in. In view of this position he asserted that the petitioners are not entitled to claim promotions as candidates belonging to reserved category i. e. Scheduled Castes. The facts on the aforesaid line stated by Respondent No. 3 in his affidavit dated September 7 1993 were not disputed before me by Mr. Parmar L. A. for the petitioners at the time of arguments. Those facts have got therefore to be accepted as they are. Going by those facts it has got to be said that as on the day the petition came to be filed if at all there was a backlog of general category candidates in the matter of promotion to the post of DCFs from the post of ACFs and even applying the roster neither the Scheduled Castes candidates nor the Scheduled Tribes candidates (at any rate the Scheduled Castes candidates) could have any claim for promotion to the post of DCFs on the basis of the roster either on April 1 1993 or on July 27 1993 (the date on which the petition came to be filed ). Therefore even assuming that on the basis of the proviso to Rule (2) of the Recruitment Rules as Mr. Therefore even assuming that on the basis of the proviso to Rule (2) of the Recruitment Rules as Mr. Parmar would like me to read with modifications the petitioners can successfully contend that at the stage of promotion also the proviso to Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules should come into play and if reserved category candidates who have put in 8 years of service are not available then the petitioners should be promoted in relaxation of the requirement of 8 years service as eligibility criteria on the facts either on April 1 1993 or on July 27 1993 when the petition came to be filed there was any backlog of posts meant for reserved category candidates to be filled in by promotions to the posts of DCFs nor was under the roster it the turn of the petitioners to be promoted to the posts of DCFs for as stated by Respondent No. 3 in his affidavit just now referred to after the reservation policy in the matter of promotions came to be made applicable prospectively with effect from February 12 1986 not a single ACP belonging to the general category has been promoted and as against that 9 reserved category candidates have been promoted-6 of them belonging to Scheduled Tribes and 3 belonging to Scheduled Castes. These facts as stated above were not disputed before me. Therefore accepting those facts as they are it has got to be said that when the Respondent-State considered the question of giving promotions to 18 persons from the posts of ACFs to the posts of DCFs by virtue of the interim orders passed by this court the question of considering the petitioners for the promotional post would nowhere be in the picture. There was no backlog of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the turn of the petitioners as Scheduled Caste candidates had certainly not reached even on the application of roster. If at all it was the turn of the general category candidates to be promoted under the interim orders of this court as pointed out by Respondent No. 3 in his affidavit dated September 7 1993 ( 20 ) IN this view of the matter the argument of the petitioners based on the reservation policy and applicability of roster for getting the relief as prayed in the petition or otherwise in my opinion is ill-founded both in law and on facts. In the aforesaid view of the matter I see no substance in the petition. . ( 21 ) BEFORE I part with this judgment. I would like to refer to Civil Application No. 1927 of 1993 filed by the petitioners in this Special Civil Application. In paragraph 4 of that C. A. the petitioners have with view to invoking the proviso to rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules stated that Sarvashri N. L. Desai and J. P. Vasava ACFs -reserved category candidates-who have not put in 8 years of service have been promoted to the posts of DCFs on November 11 1991 In support of this statement the petitioners have produced at Annexure-B to the Civil Application a copy of the promotion order. In paragraph 3. 4 of the main SCA the petitioners have as stated above averred that Shri M. V. Parmar. Shri I. A. Chauhan and Shri N. L. Desai belonging to Scheduled Caste communities have in November 1991 been promoted from the posts of ACFs to the posts of DCFs. Now the promotion order at Annexure-B to the Civil Application shows that as many as 8 persons have been promoted from the posts of ACFs to the higher promotional posts. Those 8 persons include Sarvashri M. V. Parmar I. A. Chauhan and N. L. Desai whose names have been referred to in the main SCA as also Shri J. P. Vasava whose name for the first time has been referred to by the petitioners in the Civil Application. The promotion order Annexure-B to the Civil Application clearly states by way of foot-note that the promotion orders are issued by virtue of the High Courts orders in the Special Civil Applications mentioned in the fool-note which have been filed by Shri M. V. Parmar and others in this High Court. Those promotions issued under that order Annexure-B to the Civil Application would be subject to the final outcome of the Special Civil Applications as mentioned in the foot-note to the order which were pending in this High Court at the time the promotion order came to be issued on November 19 1991 Now the promotion order Annexure-B to the Civil Application read in light of the facts stated by the petitioners in para 4 of the Civil Application and para 3. 4 of the main SCA renders complete support to the contention of Respondent No. 3 that under the Government order dates November 19 1991 - Annexure-B to the Civil Application persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (reserved category persons) have come to be promoted to the posts of DCFS. As indicated hereinabove undisputedly from February 12 1986 till this date not a single general category candidate has been promoted from the post of ACFs to the post of DCFs. Therefore as shown hereinabove there is no question of applying the roster in favour of the petitioners and the prayer made by the petitioners in the Special Civil Application is required just to be rejected. ( 22 ) AS I have proceeded on the basis that the-reservation policy and the roster apply even in the case of promotions. albeit with effect from February 12 1986 it is not necessary for me to refer to the various Government Resolutions and the following authorities relied upon by Mr. Parmar L. A. for the petitioners. I would only say that Mr. Parmar relied upon the following authorities: (A) Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (Railways) vs. Union of India and others (1981) 1 SCC p. 246. (B) Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association (Regd.) vs. Union of India 1990 (Supp1) SCC p. 350. and (C) State of Kerala and another vs. N. M. Thomas and others (1976) 2 SCC p. 310. ( 23 ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion I hold that the Special Civil Application deserves to be dismissed. Consequently Civil Application No. 1927 of 1993 also deserves to be dismissed. Both are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim orders as regards Status quo etc. stand vacated. Application Dismissed. .