R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 8th February, 1984, passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1089 of 1980 and Special Civil application No. 1965 of 1980 by which the petitions were allowed by declaring that the present respondents-original petitioners were senior to appellants in the cadre of Junior Clerk and their seniority was to be respected for the purpose of Regulation 17 of the Regulations framed under Sec. 465 of the Bombay provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, prescribing the conditions of service of the Municipal officers and servants. It was directed that the Municipal corporation shall examine the question of promotions of the original petitioners in light of such seniority and the provisions of Regulation 17 and if they were otherwise found entitled to promotion in terms of Regulation 17, their cases will be considered for actual salary from 1-1-1980, but all other benefits except the actual salary will be extended to them fully if they are entitled to be promoted at the time when the persons now held to be junior to them were promoted. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the appellants, the learned singe Judge committed an error in holding Regulation 17 of the Regulations applied to the facts of the case and that on a true interpretation of the provisions, it did not apply to the persons working in the Audit Department, and that the seniority of those working in the Audit department was to be maintained with reference to the date of entry in the department, and not on the basis of the standards laid down by the Regulation 17. ( 3 ) THE learned single Judge, while considering the above contention, referred to the provisions of Sec. 47 which specifically provided that the Municipal Chief officer shall exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of the servants under him subject to the rules and regulations (which would mean regulation framed by the Standing Committee) made under Sec. 465 of the Act. This interpretation was clearly warranted by provisions of Sec. 47 (1) of the Act. This interpretation was clearly warranted by provisions of Sec. 47 (1) of the Act. ( 4 ) SECTION 465 (1) (1) of the said Act empowers the Standing Committee to frame regulations not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules, but in consonance with any resolution that may be passed by the Corporation in general, prescribing any other conditions of the officers and servants, besides the conditions specifically mentioned in the provisions preceding the said clause. Thus, so far as promotion was concerned, Regulation 17 was attracted in the case of an employee of the Corporation unless any specific provision was made in context of any particular category of employees contrary to the said provision under the Act or the Rules, or under the resolution of the Corporation. ( 5 ) UNDER Regulation 17 which relates to promotion, it was provided that promotion shall be given in accordance with the seniority in service, coupled with efficiency in the cadre of section concerned, provided that this was not to fetter discretion of Municipal Commissioner to make direct appointments. In the Note below the said Regulation, it was specifically mentioned that in the case of the Clerks recruited on or after 1-4-1957, the seniority shall be determined with reference to the date of passing the departmental examination. In the present matter, there is no dispute about the fact that the respondents- original petitioners had joined as Junior Clerk in the Corporation earlier than the present appellants, and that they had passed the departmental examination also earlier than the present appellants. Therefore, the seniority of the respondents-original petitioners was required to be fixed above the appellants who passed their departmental examination later than the respondents. The learned single Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 146 of 1973 decided on 3rd February, 1975 in which the said Regulation 17 came to be considered. The Division Bench had that seniority was to be fixed under Regulation 17, not only on the basis of the length of service rendered, but the efficiency in the cadre was also to be taken notice of and that the length of service was to be taken into account from the date of the passing of the departmental examination for the purpose of fixing seniority. The challenge against the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Regulation 17 on the ground that it violated Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution was negatived and it was held that the contention that regulation 17 was arbitrary or it gave unbridled powers to the Commissioner cannot be accepted. In our opinion also, Regulation 17 provides a valid criteria for fixing seniority with reference to the date of passing of the departmental examination which has a nexus with efficiency in the cadre. There can be a valid distinction, between those who have passed departmental examination and those who have not, for the purpose of considering them for promotion which was not to be given merely on the basis of seniority irrespective of the efficiency of the incumbents which could be judged from the outcome of the results of the departmental examinations. ( 6 ) IN our opinion, the learned single Judge was justified in following the decision of Division Bench and directing that the seniority of the original- petitioners should be counted on the basis of the date of their passing the departmental examination, as stipulated by Regulation 17 read with Note below it. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned single Judge and conclusions reached in the impugned decision. But the appeals are therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed. .