S. B. SINHA ( 1 ) INTERPRETATION of the proviso appended to Rule 20 of Indian Civil Accounts Service (Group-A) Recruitment Rules, 1977 is involved in this writ petition which arises out of the judgment and order dated 4. 6. 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi, in O. A. No. 1930 of 1992. ( 2 ) IN the, year 1990, the second respondent was working as Pay and Accounts Officer group B . He was considered for promotion under proviso to Rule 20 (l) (ii) of the said Rules. Other officers similarly situated who. were either junior or senior to him were also considered. One Mohinder Singh and S. S. lyer, who were Junior to respondent No. 2 were allegedly found more meritorious by the UPSC and they were thus included in the panel, whereas name of respondent No. 2 did not find place therein. The said officers were promoted on 9. 10. 1990. Questioning the said order, the O. A. was filed by the second respondent and by reason of the impugned judgment the learned Tribunal allowed the same. ( 3 ) MS Pinki Anand, counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the learned tribunal was not correct in holding that promotion to higher post in terms of the aforementioned rule is automatic and no selection process is involved therein. Learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal in its impugned judgment misread the proviso appended to sub rule (1) of Rule 20. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 appearing in person, on the other hand, would support the judgment. Rule 20 (l) (ii) and the proviso of the said rules read thus: "appointment by promotion to the various grades: (l) (i) appointment by promotion to the Junior Time Scale of the service shall be made in consultation with the Commission ( i. e. UPSC) by selection on merit out of the eligible Pay and Accounts officers Group B of the Central Civil Accounts Service. ( group B) who have put in not less than 5 years of service in that grade after appointment thereto on a regular basis. ( group B) who have put in not less than 5 years of service in that grade after appointment thereto on a regular basis. (ii) Appointment to the posts in the Senior Time Scale shall be made by promotion of officers in the junior time scale in the order of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit who have put in 4 years regular service in the junior time scale. Provided that Pay and Accounts Officers Group "b" may in consultation with the commission, be allowed to officiate in the Senior Time scale till such time as officers of the junior time scale are available for promotion on a regular basis to the senior time scale. " ( 5 ) CLAUSE (i) speaks of promotion by selection on merits in consultation with UPSC for the said purpose. Indisputably the case of all eligible candidates are required to be considered. Similarly promotion in senior time scale is required to be made from amongst those persons, who have put in four years regular service and are in junior time scale in the order of seniority. Clause (ii) of sub rule (1) of Rule 20, speaks of promotion on regular basis subject to rejection of the unfit. Proviso appended thereto, on the other hand, speaks of an arrangement on an ad hoc basis. The same does not involve any selection process. Consultation with the Public Service Commission although is required thereun der, the promotion is not to be made upon selection. The said proviso has to be taken recourse to for making a stop-gap arrangement. No qualification has been prescribed therefor. The selection is to officiate only till regular appointment is made. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner that the word selection should be read in the proviso in our opinion is misplaced. It is a well settled principle of law that for the purpose of interpretation of provisions of statute the same should be read in its entirety. As indicated therein before clause (i) and (ii) of sub rule (1) of Rule 2 provides for different modes of promotion. Whereas in terms of clause (i) merit cum seniority is the criteria, in terms of clause (ii) thereof seniority subject to rejection of unfit is the criteria. Thus none of the aforementioned criteria is to be adopted for the purpose of promotion on officiating basis. Whereas in terms of clause (i) merit cum seniority is the criteria, in terms of clause (ii) thereof seniority subject to rejection of unfit is the criteria. Thus none of the aforementioned criteria is to be adopted for the purpose of promotion on officiating basis. The proviso,-as is well known has several roles to play. In S. Sundaram Vs. V. R. Pattabhiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582 , it has been held :- "42 We need not multiply authorities after authorities on this point because the legal position seems to be clearly and manifestly well established. To sum up, a proviso may serve four different purposes: (1) qualifying or excepting certain provisions from the main enactment; (2) it may entirely change the very concept of the intendment of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable; (3) it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive enactment itself; and (4) it may be used merely to act as an optional addenda to the enactment with the sole object of explaining the real intendment of the statutory provision. " ( 7 ) PROVISO in question answers the first criteria referred to in the said decision. ( 8 ) IN the aforementioned reasons we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference with the impugned judgment. The writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2000/ -.