JUDGMENT This petition was originally filed before Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and was registered as Original Application No. 264/2003. On abolishment of the Tribunal, the original application was transferred and re-registered before this Court as Writ Petition No. 8104/2003. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the orders, Annexures A-1 and A-2 in this petition. (2) Brief facts necessary for lawful adjudication of this matter are as under:- The petitioner appeared in examination held by M.P. Public Service Commission (PSC) in the year 1995. The result was declared in the year 1996. The petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector. The information of selection dated 16.1.1997 is Annexure A-3 and consequential appointment order is dated 12.8.1997 (Annexure A-4). The petitioner was appointed on probation for two years. In condition No.2 of the appointment order it was made clear that petitioner would be required to pass the examination conducted by administrative academy. It was also made clear that service conditions of the petitioner will be governed by M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 (for brevity, “1961 Rules”) and M.P. State Administrative Service Classification Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975 (for brevity, “1975 Rules”). The departmental examination was governed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department's Circular dated 17th June, 1977 (Annexure A-5). The petitioner and other officers so selected were required to pass examination in following papers:- (i) Criminal, Civil, Administrative and Revenue Law and Procedure. (ii) Hindi (iii) Accounts. The petitioner's contemporaries cleared the said three papers prior to 19th March, 1999 and, therefore, they were confirmed by the department. On 19.3.1999 (Annexure A-6) the Government amended the earlier circular, Annexure A-5, and introduced another paper in the said examination, namely, “Panchayat Raj Administrative Law and Procedure”. The petitioner appeared in this paper also but could qualify it only on 27.1.2001. The petitioner was confirmed on 28.1.2001 by Annexure P-1. The respondent appended a note in Annexure P-1 mentioning that the petitioner had passed the departmental examination after two years of probation, because of which she was given extension of one year and, therefore, her seniority will not be reckoned on the basis of merit position of the select list of PSC but would be governed by rule 12 of 1961 Rules and seniority would be reckoned with regard to passing of the departmental examination. The probation period of the petitioner was extended on 22.7.2000 (Annexure A-7) on the ground that she could not pass the departmental examination. (3) Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner raised following points:- (i) At the time of appointment of petitioner, the examination was consisting of three papers vide Annexure A-5 dated 17th June, 1977 and, therefore, the petitioner was obliged to clear those three papers within two years. If petitioner was required to clear yet another paper as per amended circular, Annexure A-6, two years period should have been counted by the respondent from 19th March, 1999, the date from which new paper was introduced. Lastly, he relied on a recent Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2012 (I) MPJR (FB) 375 (Masood Akhtar (Dr.) vs. R.K. Tripathi). (4) Per Contra, Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate, supported the order on the basis of aforesaid Full Bench judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the action impugned is in consonance with 1975 Rules read with 1961 Rules. She also relied on AIR 1996 SC 2396 (M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P. And others). (5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (6) Before dealing with rival contentions of the parties, I deem it proper to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rules. Rule 13(3) of 1975 Rules prescribes that the probationer shall undergo the prescribed training and pass the prescribed departmental examination during the period of his probation. The word “prescribed” is used in relation to “examination”. The contention of Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prescribed examination means those three papers which were prescribed at the time of appointment and, therefore, no alteration made midway will adversely affect the petitioner for the purpose of confirmation or grant of seniority. Rule 28 of 1975 Rules empowers the Government to confirm an officer if he/she passed all the prescribed departmental examinations or he/she has been exempted from it. Rule 23 of 1975 Rules borrows rule 12 of 1961 Rules for the purpose of regulating/determining seniority of the officers. Rule 12 of 1961 Rules empowers the Government to decide the seniority on the basis of completing normal period of probation. Rule 23 of 1975 Rules borrows rule 12 of 1961 Rules for the purpose of regulating/determining seniority of the officers. Rule 12 of 1961 Rules empowers the Government to decide the seniority on the basis of completing normal period of probation. (7) The petitioner has not doubted the power of the Government to alter the seniority position in the event of extension of probation period or passing of the examination after two years. The contention of the petitioner is that only those three papers were required to be cleared within two years which were “prescribed” in Annexure A-5. It is stated that those three papers prescribed in Annexure A-5 were cleared by the petitioner within two years. If the department added another paper, further two years should have been given to the petitioner from 19.3.1999, the date when it was added. (8) The contention of the petitioner is mainly based on the word “prescribed” employed in rule 13(3) of 1975 Rules. (9) A microscopic reading of this rule shows that the Legislature in its wisdom has used the word “prescribed” with the word “examination”, It has not been used with the word “question papers”. Thus, an officer is required to pass the prescribed examination and the department was not bound to confine the examination only to the papers included in Annexure A-5. It is a matter of common knowledge and settled law that the employer is the best judge to decide as to which kind of papers are required to be introduced with a view to equip its officers with proper knowledge. The employer in its wisdom can always add, amend or reduce the number of papers. The syllabi can also be modified, improved as per the need of the hour by the employer. There is no vested, statutory or fundamental right available to the petitioner to pass only those papers which were introduced in Annexure A-5. The Apex Court in (1999) 3 SCC 653 (State of J&K vs. Shiv Ram Sharma and others), opined as under:- “It is permissible to the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion to different posts. There is no indefeasible right in the respondents to claim promotion to a higher grade to which qualification could be prescribed. There is no indefeasible right in the respondents to claim promotion to a higher grade to which qualification could be prescribed. There is no guarantee that rules framed by the Government in that behalf would also be favourable to them.” (10) In the light of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, it was well within the power of the employer to add a departmental examination and it cannot be held that officer is obliged to pass only those papers which were prescribed at the time of her appointment as Annexure A-5. The word “examination” has a wider meaning and examination contains papers. Therefore, Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed for passing of the “prescribed examination” and not “prescribed papers”. At the cost of repetition, in my opinion, the papers can be added, reduced, altered or modified but examination will remain the same. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the prescribed examination should be read as prescribed papers at the time of appointment is of no merit and is hereby rejected. (11) Learned counsel for the petitioner although relied on (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841 (K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another), in my opinion, the said judgment has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case a selection criteria was prescribed and when selection process was in full swing, the rule of game was changed. The same was held to be impermissible. In the present case, the rule has not been changed. Rule only prescribes passing of “prescribed examination” and the said rule remained intact. Reliance is also placed on (1997) SCC (L&S) 1527 (Chairman, Railway Board and others vs. C.R.Rangadhamaiah and others). The said judgment deals with the question of retrospective amendment affecting vested or accrued right of a Government servant with regard to grant of revised pay and other benefits. The said judgment has no applicability in the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner has no accrued, vested or fundamental right to appear only in those papers which were prescribed by Annexure A-5. The employer can prescribe further papers in the said examination as per its administrative exigency/requirement. (12) The other contention with regard to counting of further period of two years from 19.3.1999 when another paper is inserted, in the opinion of this Court, this argument is also meritless. The employer can prescribe further papers in the said examination as per its administrative exigency/requirement. (12) The other contention with regard to counting of further period of two years from 19.3.1999 when another paper is inserted, in the opinion of this Court, this argument is also meritless. Once Government circular, Annexure A-5, dated 17.6.1977 is amended by Annexure A-6, the new subject aforesaid became part and parcel of the same examination. The petitioner was required to clear this examination within two years from the date of her original appointment. Two years cannot be counted from the date of insertion of a new paper. In other words, the petitioner could not pass the examination as per papers Annexure A-5 till 19.3.1999. From that date, a new paper is introduced. Such prescription of new paper cannot be found fault with. On insertion of additional paper, it became part of the examination. Thus, the petitioner was required to pass the said examination within the time initially granted to her, i.e., two years. If she did not complete the same, the probation was rightly extended for another year. She passed the examination and considering the said date of passing examination, she was confirmed. The Apex Court in (2011) 6 SCC 725 (Deepak Agarwal and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) opined as under:- “It is the rules which are prevalent at the time when the consideration took place for promotion, which would be applicable. A candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the “rule in force” on the date the consideration took place. There is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises.” (13) On the basis of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, once new paper is inserted in the examination, the said paper forms part of “prescribed examination” and the petitioner was obliged to pass it within the stipulated time failing which under the rules the employer was empowered to determine her seniority. (14) The Apex Court had an occasion to consider 1961 Rules in M.P. Chandoria (supra). In para 5 of the said judgment it is opined as under:- “5........ (14) The Apex Court had an occasion to consider 1961 Rules in M.P. Chandoria (supra). In para 5 of the said judgment it is opined as under:- “5........ Until the probation is declared and he was confirmed in the post, he does not become a member of the service (sic) successful completion of the probation and pass of the prescribed tests or conditions precedent to declare the probation. So, mere passage of time one year does not entitle a probationer to be a member of the service. He remains to be on temporarily service. On declaration of probation, the appointing authority should confirm in a pending post available or to grant quasi-permanent status. As soon as the post is available, he should be confirmed. In view of the admitted position that he did not pass the test, the appointing authority considered that his seniority would be counted w.e.f. the date of his passing the test. Rule 12 (a) (ii) clearly empowers the appointing authority to assign, in these circumstances, the seniority in lower level than the one assigned by the Public Service Commission. We do not find any illegality committed by the authorities in giving seniority from the date of his passing the test.” (15) The Full Bench of this Court in Masood Akhtar (Dr.) (supra) opined as under in para 11 (iii) :-“(iii) Under rule 12(1)(f) an employee would be allowed to retain original seniority where extension of period of probation is not due to any fault or shortcoming of the employee. However, where extension of period of probation is on account of fault or shortcoming on the part of the employee, in such a case the probationer has to be assigned seniority from the date if that date can be ascertained i.e. the date on which he clears the departmental examination or where such date cannot be ascertained, the date on which he is considered suitable for confirmation.” (16) In view of the judgments in M.P. Chandoria and Masood Akhtar (Dr.) (supra), it is clear that under rule 12 of 1961 Rules the department can assign seniority to the probationer from the date she has completed the probation and passed departmental examination. In the present case the petitioner has been given seniority with regard to the date she cleared the examination and was confirmed by the department. In the present case the petitioner has been given seniority with regard to the date she cleared the examination and was confirmed by the department. No fault can be found in the said action of the department which is in consonance with 1961 Rules and the law laid down on the said subject. (17) Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed.