ORDER : A.M. Ahmadi and G.N. Ray, JJ. The short question to be considered in this appeal is whether the promotion to the posts of Stamp Reporters and Court Fee Examiners went by the Rule of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. The relevant rule is Rule 8 of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the `Rules', which provides as under: "8. Subject to the requirements of efficiency promotion shall ordinarily be made according to seniority. An official may receive special promotion for recognised merit irrespective of the grade to which he may belong, or of his seniority within the grade." 2. On a bare reading of the rule it becomes obvious that promotion was required to be given on seniority-cum-merit basis. That is why the rule in terms states that promotion shall ordinarily be made according to seniority subject, of course, to requirement of efficiency which introduces the unfitness test. The latter part of the rule permits out of turn promotion for a person of exceptional merit. Reference was, however, made to the order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Rules 2-A and 2-B of the Rules. Our attention was invited to the provision therein which states that the recruitment to the posts of Stamp Reporters and Court Fee Examiners shall be made by promotion from amongst Upper Division Clerks, after holding a test in the subjects catalogued thereunder. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the requirement of holding a test was indicative of the fact that the appointment had to be made on competitive basis i.e. solely on merit considerations, seniority taking the next place. On a plain interpretation of Rule 8, we are afraid we cannot accede to this submission. The requirement of holding the test is only for the purpose of assessing the merit so that the criteria of unfitness can be brought into play on a rational basis. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court in this connection is unassailable. 3. The requirement of holding the test is only for the purpose of assessing the merit so that the criteria of unfitness can be brought into play on a rational basis. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court in this connection is unassailable. 3. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that whereas the petition had been filed by only Respondent 1, the High Court while finally concluding the matter has given a direction to promote all those who were senior to the appellants even though they were not parties to the petition. 4. Once the High Court had placed a particular interpretation on the Rules, the benefit of that interpretation had to go to all those who qualified under the seniority-cum-merit rule. 5. There was no point in waiting for each and every person to file a petition. Therefore, we do not see any reason why we should entertain such a technical plea when the High Court has done substantial justice to all concerned. 6. For the above reasons we see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. 7. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.