K. SREEDHARAN, C. J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER in Special Civil Application No. 2719 of 1980 is Appellant. He started his service as Assistant Traffic Superintendent in Bombay State Road Transport Corporation, in the year 1953. In the month of November, 1959, he joined territorial Army. He was in the Army till May, 1968. During this period, six of his juniors were promoted to the next higher post of Divisional Traffic Superintendent. After rejoining the Transport establishment, he claimed promotion to the cadre of Divisional transport Superintendent with effect from the date on which has immediate junior was promoted. This claim was declined by the respondents. Thereupon, he approached this court by filing Special Civil Application No. 2719 of 1980. Learned Single Judge by judgment dated 4th July, 1996 dismissed that application. Hence, this appeal. ( 2 ) ). Main grievance advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant is that appellant should have been given protection of his seniority and promotion to the cadre of divisional Traffic Superintendent as and when vacancy in that cadre arose. This right of the appellant, it is stated, is protected by Annexures "a", "b" and "c" filed alongwith special Civil Application. Had these exhibits been taken into proper consideration, it is said, the learned Judge would not have dismissed Special Civil Application. So, we will proceed to deal with these exhibits, at the first instance. ( 3 ) ). Annexure "a" is reproduction of Rule-7-A of Territorial Army Regulation, 1948. It is concerned with reinstatement in civil employment of persons required to perform military service. As per this rule, a person whose service was required in military, on return, should be reinstated in civil service. This rule has no application to the facts of this case because appellant who returned from Territorial Army was absorbed in service under the Transport Establishment. Since he has been readmitted to the cadre in which he worked prior to his joining the Territorial Army, regulation 7-A has been fully complied with. ( 4 ) ). Annexure "b" is a copy of Circular dated 22nd February, 1960 issued by the State Transport Corporation, Bombay. As per that Circular, state transport employee on deputation to Territorial Army is entitled to maintain seniority in the cadre and promotion to the higher cadres, if he would otherwise be entitled, had he not been away from service. Annexure "b" is a copy of Circular dated 22nd February, 1960 issued by the State Transport Corporation, Bombay. As per that Circular, state transport employee on deputation to Territorial Army is entitled to maintain seniority in the cadre and promotion to the higher cadres, if he would otherwise be entitled, had he not been away from service. As per this Circular, petitioner will be entitled to maintain his seniority in the cadre which he held at the time he left for joining Territorial Army. He is also entitled to promotion to the higher cadres, if he would have otherwise been entitled to promotion. In other words, petitioner should have been promoted to the cadre of Divisional Traffic Superintendent, if any vacancy in that cadre arose, while he was in Territorial Army, if he would have otherwise been entitled to such promotion. This promotion he could claim only if he was entitled to that, had he continued in the transport establishment. It is now seen that for promotion to the post of Divisional Transport Superintendent, he should have passed the departmental test. Without passing the test, he could not have been promoted to the post of Divisional Traffic Superintendent, even if he had continued to be in transport establishment. In such a situation, on account of the fact that he was in Territorial Army he cannot claim the post of Divisional Traffic Superintendent without passing the departmental test. So, his claim for promotion to the cadre of Divisional Traffic superintendent at any time prior to his passing the test cannot be sustained on the mere ground that he happend to be in Territorial Army. ( 5 ) ). Annexure "c" is the verbatim production of Fundamental Rule 113. That rule is also not helpful to the petitioner because it envisages promotion of one who is having the basic qualification. When it is seen that petitioner was lacking basic qualification, he cannot have any recourse to Annexure "c" either. ( 6 ) ). As stated earlier, from 1959 to 1968, petitioner was a member of the Territorial Army. During that period few vacancies in the cadre of Divisional Traffic Superintendent arose. Since petitioner did not passed the Departmental examination which was basic qualification for promotion to the post, he was denied promotion. This action of the respondents cannot be faulted. ( 7 ) ). During that period few vacancies in the cadre of Divisional Traffic Superintendent arose. Since petitioner did not passed the Departmental examination which was basic qualification for promotion to the post, he was denied promotion. This action of the respondents cannot be faulted. ( 7 ) ). Respondents allowed the Appellant to take departmental examination in 1968. He could not pass in that examination. Thereupon, he sought permanent exemption from passing the examination. Respondents granted his prayer and exempted him from appearing in the examination, as per Annexure "h" dated 4. 9. 1974. Thereupon, he was promoted to the cadre of Divisional Traffic Superintendent, as per Annexure "i" order, thus, appellants claim for promotion was considered by the respondents in 1974. ( 8 ) ). Yet another argument by learned counsel representing the appellant is based on Annexure "f". This exhibit deals with some of the benefits that were extended to personnels who were in Army, Air Force or Navy. Such Officers seniority and promotions were protected. If promotion of an employee to the higher cadre depends on departmental examination, that employee if passes the examination within one year after return from military service is entitled to retrospective promotion with effect from the date on which he would have been promoted. For getting benefit of this, appellant ought to have passed the examination within one year of his return from territorial army. He rejoined transport establishment in the year 1968. Had he passed the departmental examination within one year therefrom, he could have claimed the benefit of this policy. Appellant has no case that the passed the examination within one year of his rejoining the transport establishment. In fact, he took the examination in 1968 and failed, till he was granted permanent exemption in 1974, he did not passed the examination. So under no circumstance, can he claim the benefit of any of these Circular or policy decisions. ( 9 ) ). Immediately after getting permanent exemption from passing the departmental test, he was promoted to the cadre of Divisional Traffic Superintendent, Thereby all his rights have been protected by the transport establishment. Appellant is not entitled to any other benefit. Learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in denying relief while dismissing the Special Civil Application. The result, therefore, is appeal fails and the same is dismissed. .