Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner is a Lower Division Clerk in the Panchayat service. He has approached this court seeking a declaration that he is entitled to exemption from passing Panchayat test by virtue of R.13(A)(1)(b) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. He contends that Panchayat test prescribed as per the Special Rules for Panchayat Service issued in G.O. (P) No. 151/94/ LAD dated. 16.6.1994 is a new test. R.13(A)(1)(b) mentioned above reads as follows: "Where a pass in a special or departmental test is newly prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post therein or in any class thereof, a member of a service who has not passed the said test but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to such class, category, grade or post may, within two years of the introduction of the test, be appointed thereto temporarily". Thus, when a new test is introduced by a Special Rule as a condition for provision, every incumbent has an exemption for 2 years and is eligible for promotion on temporary basis. Therefore, the issue involved in this Original Petition is whether the Panchayat test prescribed as per the Special Rules brought into force as per Government Order dated. 16.6.1994 is a new test so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The petitioner was initially recruited as Panchayat Asst. Grade II on 3.12.1979 in the Panchayat Common Service. As per the Panchayat Common Service Rules, pass in Panchayat test was one among the obligatory test qualifications for promotion as Panchayat Assistant Grade I, subsequently, re-designated as U.D. Clerk. That was introduced in G.O. (MS) 59/87/LAD dated. 28.2.1987. At than time, it was a new test and all persons in the Pachayat Common service including the petitioner were granted temporary exemption as provided in R.13(A)(1)(b) of the KS & SSR and the petitioner availed of that exemption and got promotion temporarily as U.D. Clerk with effect from 13.10.1987. As he did not acquire the said test qualification during the period of temporary exemption he faced the reversion as L.D. Clerk. While continuing so, the members of the Panchayat Common Service and the ministerial staff in the Panchayat Department were integrated into Panchayat subordinate service. Special Rules were issued in respect of that integrated service as per G.O. (P) No. 151/94/LAD dated. 16.6.1994. While continuing so, the members of the Panchayat Common Service and the ministerial staff in the Panchayat Department were integrated into Panchayat subordinate service. Special Rules were issued in respect of that integrated service as per G.O. (P) No. 151/94/LAD dated. 16.6.1994. At that time the personnel in Panchayat Common Service were liable to pass Panchayat test for promotion as U.D. Clerk, whereas that test was not obligatory for the personnel in Panchayat Department. When the services were integrated and Special Rules were issued on 16.6.1994, Panchayat test was made obligatory as a condition for promotion as U.D. Clerk, The Panchayat test was already in existence as per the Panchayat Common Service Rules. Therefore, that was not a new test for those who were already in the Panchayat Common Service. It was a new test only for personnel in Panchayat Department, who were also brought in to the Panchayat Subordinate Service. Thus, the Panchayat test is a new test only for the latter group, that is ministerial staff in the Panchayat Department and not a new test for the personnel in the Panchayat Common Service, to whom it had already made obligatory from 1987 onwards. As it is not a new test, naturally, the persons in the erstwhile Panchayat Common Service cannot seek exemption under R.13(A)(1)(b) of the General Rules in KS & SSR. The petitioner was a person born on the erstwhile Panchayat Common Service; so he is not entitled for that exemption. 3. The petitioner submits that he is entitled for such exemption in terms of the Full Bench decision of mis Court in Wilson v. The Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University (ILR 1984 (2) Ker.124). That decision does not deal with the exemption provided for a new test. That aspect had never come up for the consideration of the Full Bench in that decision. That could not have been a matter in issue in that case before the Full Bench. When Agricultural University was formed certain persons in the Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Departments were transferred to the University under S.58(4)(b) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act with effect from 1.2.1972. Such persons became the members of the service of the Agricultural University along with the persons recruited in the service of the Agricultural University. It was not an integration of two departments. Such persons became the members of the service of the Agricultural University along with the persons recruited in the service of the Agricultural University. It was not an integration of two departments. When such persons were transferred to Agricultural University they became part and parcel of the service in the Agricultural University and were covered by the Rules applicable to the staff of the Agricultural University. No test was prescribed at that time in the Agricultural University for promotion of Lower Division Clerks. It was later than such transfer the test was made applicable. While providing for the test a discrimination was shown stating that, the persons transferred from Agriculture or Animal Husbandry Department shall have to pass the test for declaration of promotion and for promotion to higher post. The person newly recruited to the Agricultural University were granted exemption for 2 years. This was found to be discriminatory because when the persons were transferred from Agricultural Department to Kerala Agricultural University, there was no requirement of test in that University. The concept of new test was also not examined by the Full Bench in that case because there was no question of new test or existing test in the Agricultural University as the test was introduced later man these transfer. Therefore, that Full Bench decision is not applicable for the case in hand. 4. The contention of the petitioners that there is a discrimination between the persons born on the erstwhile Panchayat Common Service and the Ministerial Staff in the Panchayat Department also does not have any force. It is not correct to say that these two groups cannot be classified into two. When the Panchayat Subordinate Service was formed and a new Special Rule was prescribed, there were one set of persons to whom the test had been made obligatory and another set of persons to whom the test was not obligatory. In such circumstances, in respect of those for whom the test was not obligatory, the exemption under R.13(A)(1)) is available and to the other group such as exemption is not available. The personnel in Panchayat Common Service had already availed of the exemption when that test was prescribed in 1987 and several of the persons in that department have passed that test. The personnel in Panchayat Common Service had already availed of the exemption when that test was prescribed in 1987 and several of the persons in that department have passed that test. If the petitioner is given a further exemption, that will affect the persons who had already passed test while continuing in Panchayat Common Service and awaiting promotion. That may really lead to discrimination. The contention of the petitioner that after the introduction of Panchayat Raj Act, the Panchayat test has become Panchayat Raj Test also does not have any force. It is specifically averred in the counter affidavit "the syllabus for the Panchayat test is not yet changed or modified. The same syllabus is being continued by the Public Service Commission for conducting the Panchayat test". So on this basis also, the petitioners cannot say that the test has become a new test. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled for the declaration as claimed in the Original Petition. Consequently, Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.