Judgment K.M. Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner is the applicant before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal herein after referred to as a “Tribunal”. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 3.9.1994. His probation was declared on 3.9.1996. He was promoted as U.D clerk on 30.7.2002. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste community. It is his case that being a member of the Scheduled Caste Community even though he had not passed the departmental tests till 30.5.2002, he was entitled to be temporarily promoted under Section 13A1(a) of KSSR. It is his further complaint that his juniors were promoted by proceedings dated 1.12.1999 (Annexure-A2 in the application). Respondents 4 and 5 were promoted thereunder. The 3rd respondent came to be promoted by Annexure-A3 dated 29.7.2000. The 3rd respondent is also a member of the Scheduled Caste. Respondents 3 to 5 are juniors of the petitioner in the cadre of LD Clerk. Annexure A4 is the State wise final seniority list. The petitioner represented against the denial of benefit of temporary exemption provided under Section 13A(1). Thereafter he was included in the revised final seniority list of UD Clerk/SVO for the period from 1.6.1996 to 31.12.2000 as rank No.2306 with the assigned date 11.11.1999. He was not satisfied with the said seniority. According to him respondents 3 to 5 were his juniors who were placed above him. Against Annexure-A6 seniority list in which he was shown at rank no.2306 with assigned date 11.11.1999, the petitioner filed Annexure-A8 representation. Thereafter there is reference to proceedings in the High Court directing revision of provisional lists. He would state that in Annexure-A9 provisional seniority list his position was shown correctly. Applicant was in Annexure-A9 shown as serial No.7152 which was done according to him after granting benefit of Rule 13A1(a), respondents 3 to 5 were shown as assigned rank Nos. 7154, 7156 and 7161. But it is a case of the petitioner that in the final seniority list published as Annexure-A10 respondents 3 to 5 had been given rank No.7051, 7053 and 7057 whereas the petitioner is given rank No.9449. The applicant/petitioner filed appeal under Rule 27B before the Government (Annexure-A11). The same was rejected by Annexure-A12. He filed Annexure-A13 representation and that is rejected by Annexure-A14. The applicant/petitioner filed appeal under Rule 27B before the Government (Annexure-A11). The same was rejected by Annexure-A12. He filed Annexure-A13 representation and that is rejected by Annexure-A14. It is in the said circumstances the petitioner filed the Original Application before the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs: i) To call for the records leading to Annexure-A12 and A14 and quash the same; ii) To declare that applicant is entitled for temporary exemption under Rule 13A(1)(a) when Annexure A2 proceedings was issued by 2nd respondent. iii) To issue a direction to the 1st respondent to place the applicant in-between rank number 7050 and 7051 in Annexure-10 final seniority list of UDC/SVO. iv) To issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to promote the applicant to the post of Head Clerk and Deputy Tahsildar notionally with effect from the date of his immediate juniors was promoted. v) To issue such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The Tribunal dismissed the application and took the following view. We notice that that large number of vacancies in Upper Division cadre became available on 1.11.1998 as a result of the orders of the Government. The applicant does not have a case that the third respondent who is a member of the Scheduled Caste did not clear the tests within three years of her notional date of promotion, 1.11.1998. The claim of an incumbent for promotion has to be considered with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancy or when the turn of the incumbent arose. For various reasons, the actual order or promotion will be passed only later. Passing of such an order belatedly cannot adversely affect or be advantageous to be incumbents concerned. Their claims have to be considered with reference to the date when their turn arose. So, the date of appointment mentioned in Rule 13A(2) has to be understood in that manner. Then, that date will be clear and specific. If that date is to be taken as the actual date of promotion that will depend upon the volition of the appointing authority and will play havoc with the rights of many. So, the date of appointment mentioned in Rule 13A(2) has to be understood in that manner. Then, that date will be clear and specific. If that date is to be taken as the actual date of promotion that will depend upon the volition of the appointing authority and will play havoc with the rights of many. See the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Varghese and others v. State of Kerala and others ( 1981 KLT 458 ), wherein Subramonian Poti, C.J has articulated the above aspect in the following words: “A Full Bench of this Court in the decision in James Thomas v. Chief Justice ( 1977 KLT 622 ), has also expressed the view that the general rule is that promotions are to be decided upon with reference to time of occurrence of vacancies and not the time of making the appointments. We think there is considerable force in the view that it is the time of occurrence of vacancy that should be relevant for determining the question of promotion and not the time the order of promotion is passed. The relevant date must be definite and not depending upon the volition of the authorities as otherwise the determination would be arbitrary. If it were to be the date of promotion that is to be relevant for determining the title to such promotion the rule is capable of arbitrary exercise. Even if it is honest exercise that would be arbitrary because the fate of the service career will depend on each instance upon the time taken by the concerned authority in passing the order of promotion. On the other hand, there is definiteness in treating the date of occurrence of the vacancy as that which would determine the tile of the person to be considered for promotion. The view taken by the Division Bench in Ravindranath v. Calicut University (1977 Lab.IC 1127), appeals to us to be the rational view.” We notice that the applicant should have been promoted when his juniors were promoted and he should have been allowed to enjoy the benefits of that promotion also. But, when it comes to enjoying the seniority on the strength of continuous service, his date of acquisition of test qualification and the assigned date of promotion becomes relevant. But, when it comes to enjoying the seniority on the strength of continuous service, his date of acquisition of test qualification and the assigned date of promotion becomes relevant. If the applicant was liable to be promoted on a particular date and if he happened to be promoted only later, he can claim the benefit of seniority with continuous service on clearance of the tests within the stipulated time limit only with reference to the date when his turn arose actually. It is described in common parlance as the notional date of promotion. The claim of the applicant that it should be based on the actual date of promotion will import uncertainty into the claims of seniority of many incumbents and can engender several disputes concerning the seniority. By delaying the promotion by a few days, the appointing authority can grant undue advantage on an incumbent. So, we think, the view taken by the Government that it should be the notional date which is relevant is the correct interpretation to be placed on the above quoted rules. The same cannot be described as irrational or perverse and something which no man in his senses will take. A sensible and plausible view has been taken on the construction to be placed on the relevant statutory provisions. We are not justified in interfering with the same in exercise of our power of judicial review. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being a member of the Scheduled Caste community ought to have been promoted in the year 1999 when admittedly his juniors were promoted. If he had been promoted with reference to the dates on which the juniors were promoted that is in the year 1999, in view of the fact that he has passed the tests on 30.5.2002, he would not have suffered any reversion as he would have passed the tests within a period of three years from the date of promotion as contemplated under Rule 13A(2). In this case he would also have been entitled to seniority over his juniors as is contemplated in Rule 13A(1). He would draw our attention to Rule 13A(2) to contend that the period of exemption is three years from the 'date of the appointment'. In this case he would also have been entitled to seniority over his juniors as is contemplated in Rule 13A(1). He would draw our attention to Rule 13A(2) to contend that the period of exemption is three years from the 'date of the appointment'. In other words the period of exemption contemplated under Rule 13A(1) will ensure to the benefit of the party not from the date of actual occurrence of vacancies but from the date of actual order appointing the member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes as the case may be. 5. We deem it appropriate to refer Rule13 A1(a) which reads thus: 13A. Special and Departmental Tests- 5. Temporary exemption for promotion-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 13-(a) Where a pass in a special or departmental test is 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 belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes who has not passed the said test but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to such class, category, grade or post may be appointed thereto temporarily. 6. We deem it appropriate to refer Rule13A (2) which reads thus: 13A(2):If a member of a service appointed under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) does not pass the test within three years from the date of such appointment or when the said test also involves practical training, within three years after the first chance to undergo such training after such appointment, or if a member of service appointed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) does not pass the test within two years from the date of introduction of the said test or if the said test also involves practical training, within two years after the first chance to undergo such training after the introduction of the said test, he shall be reverted to the class, category, grade or post from which he was appointed and shall not again be eligible for appointment under clause (a) or (b) as the case may be, of sub-rule (1): Provided that the period of temporary exemption allowed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be extended by three years in the case of person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. 7. Besides he also invited our attention to Rule 13A (4). 7. Besides he also invited our attention to Rule 13A (4). 13A(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1)(2) and (3), the period of exemption shall, if necessary, be extended taking into account the number of times the prescribed test was conducted during the period so as to enable the members of the service to get at least two chances to appear for the test for each year of exemption. 8. He would therefore contend that the Tribunal has adopted a reasoning and acted contrary to the clear mandate of Rule 13A(2). If the authorities had given him promotion with reference to the date on which the juniors were promoted i.e. in December 1999 he would have three years for acquiring qualifications and since he acquired a qualification admittedly on 30.5.2002 the Tribunal acted illegally in not according the benefit of Rule 13A (1) and consequently the seniority which he is entitled to over his juniors, respondents 3 to 5. He also draws our attention to the unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.5800 of 2003 besides judgment of a Division Bench in Antony v. State of Kerala ( 1989(1) KLT 374 ). 9. Per contra the learned Government Pleader would support the order of the Tribunal. 10. Rule 13A seeks to eclipse Rule 13 in so far the claims of members of Scheduled Casts/Scheduled Tribes are concerned. In other words, Rule 13 provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service for any category, grade or post unless he possess special qualifications prescribed and has passed special tests as may be prescribed in the special rules. Rule 28 of KSSR provides inter alia that except in the case of appointment to the post of Heads of Departments no member of service or a class of service shall be eligible for promotion from the category in which he was appointed to the service unless he has satisfactorily completed probation. No doubt this is subject to various provisos which need not detain us. Combined effect of Rules 13 and 28 is that unless a person has satisfactorily completed his probation and is also in possession of qualifications which are mentioned in Rule 11 and passed the tests which are also mentioned in Rule 13 he would not be entitled to be promoted. Combined effect of Rules 13 and 28 is that unless a person has satisfactorily completed his probation and is also in possession of qualifications which are mentioned in Rule 11 and passed the tests which are also mentioned in Rule 13 he would not be entitled to be promoted. As far as passing of special tests or departmental tests which are prescribed by the special rules an exception is given to the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes by virtue of Rule 13A(1). Under the said provision if the member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is otherwise qualified and found suitable for appointment his not having passed any special or departmental tests prescribed under special rules shall not stand in the way on his is being promoted. The period of exemption is three years. In other words it is a temporary exemption from passing the departmental tests or special tests. The consequence of his not passing the tests are referred to in sub rule 2 as we already extracted. No doubt under sub rule 4 it is open to the authority to extend the period of exemption taking into account number of times prescribed test was conducted during the period so as to enable a member of service to get at least two chances to appear for the tests for each period of exemption. 12. It is apposite to this movement to notice Rule 28(bb). 28(bb) Promotion which depends upon the passing of any examination-Promotion in a service or class which depends upon the passing of any examination (General or Departmental) shall ordinarily be made with reference to the conditions existing at the time of occurrence of the vacancies and not with reference to those at the time when the question of promotion is taken up. 13. This provision has received exposition at the hands of three Full Benches of this court and it is sufficient that reference is made to judgment in Varghese v. State of Kerala ( 1981 KLT 458 ) which in fact was referred to by the Tribunal also. 14. In the ordinary case promotion to higher category, grade etc. will be decided on the basis of the person being possessed of all the qualifications and he has successfully completed the period of probation and also having passed the departmental and special tests contemplated in Rule 13. Temporary promotions can be resorted to under Rule 13A(1). 14. In the ordinary case promotion to higher category, grade etc. will be decided on the basis of the person being possessed of all the qualifications and he has successfully completed the period of probation and also having passed the departmental and special tests contemplated in Rule 13. Temporary promotions can be resorted to under Rule 13A(1). Even though the word temporary is used in Rule 13A (1), it is so used so as to convey the meaning that in view of temporary nature of the exemption granted from passing the tests under Rule 13, as the period is limited to three years should he fail to pass the tests within 3 years, he must face reversion. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal acted illegally in drawing upon the principle that it is the date of occurrence of vacancy which will decide title of the person to stake a claim for appointment and not the date of passing the order by which he is appointed. According to him, the said principle has no application in a case where Rule 13A(1) applies. He would pose the question before the court as to what would be the fate of the member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes if the authority were to deliberately delay the appointment in such a manner that he will defeat his claim, in view of the temporary nature of the exemption that is granted and the period is specified within which the employee must acquire the qualifications. Therefore, he would contend that particularly having regard to the express words used in Rule 13A(2) that the reversion will take place if he does not pass tests within a period of three years from the date of order appointing him, there is no scope for importing the principle that title for promotion must depend upon the circumstances prevalent at the time of occurrence of vacancies. He would submit that the said principle is foreign to the scope of the enquiry to be conducted in a case coming under Rule 13A. As far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge is concerned the question which arose was as follows: Respondents 3 to 8 therein were members of the Scheduled Caste. They came into service only after 31.12.1985. As far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge is concerned the question which arose was as follows: Respondents 3 to 8 therein were members of the Scheduled Caste. They came into service only after 31.12.1985. The contention was they were not entitled to claim benefit under Rule 13A(1) in the same manner as they are all entitled to the benefit of Rule 13AA of the KSSR. It was also contended that Rule 13AA will overshadow the provisions of Rule 13A(1) and all conditions applicable for fulfilling or claiming benefit under Rule 13AA must also be fulfilled for attracting Rule 13A(1). The learned Single Judge took the view that where a member of the service is entitled to get the benefit of exemption from qualification he shall be deemed to be qualified during the period of such exemption. The scope of Rule 13A(1) and 13AA were differentiated. Rule 13AA was found to be an enabling provision. No doubt the learned Single Judge held as follows: “Respondents 3 to 8 did not possess the requisite qualification as on the date of the occurrence of vacancies, they did acquire the qualification within three years from the date of their promotion. Therefore, their right to be promoted temporarily in terms of Rule 13A(1) (a) of KS & SSR will crystalise into an entitlement to continue to hold the higher post on regular basis.” 16. The precise question which we are called upon to decide is whether the period of exemption will commence or is to be counted from the date of occurrence of vacancies or from the date of actual order appointing the person did not arise for consideration before the learned Single Judge. 17. As far as the judgment of the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. Chathan (2005(1) KLT 75) the petitioner before the Single Judge was found entitled being member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community to exemption from passing the required tests and therefore to get promotion. After referring to Rule 13A (2) it is stated that one has pass the tests within the prescribed number of years of temporary appointment. The court was not called upon to decide the issue as such which we are called upon to deal with. 18. After referring to Rule 13A (2) it is stated that one has pass the tests within the prescribed number of years of temporary appointment. The court was not called upon to decide the issue as such which we are called upon to deal with. 18. As far as the judgment in Antony v. State of Kerala ( 1989 (1) KLT 374 ) is concerned vacancy in the concerned posts was existing from 1972 onwards. Order was passed in the year 1976 appointing the contesting respondents who belonged to members of Scheduled Castes apparently giving the benefit of exemption under Rule 13AA. Thereafter upon calling for the objections they were given the benefit of notional promotion from 1972 noticing that the order of exemption was available under Rule 13AA even in 1972. The court took the view that as far as persons appointed under Rule 13AA is concerned it is the date on which he is actually appointed invoking the exemption granted by Rule 13AA. The court also took the view that appointment under Rule 13A cannot be regarded as temporary appointment as contemplated under Rule 31. 19. The juniors of the petitioners were no doubt promoted in December 1999 (respondents 4 and 5). The 3rd respondent also a member of the Scheduled Caste community and his junior came to be promoted in the year 2000. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner should have been promoted invoking Rule 13A at least when juniors of the petitioners were promoted. If this had been done, runs the argument of the petitioner he would have been entitled to be promoted immediately in December 1999 in which case having acquired the test qualification on 30.5.2002, in view of Rule 13A(1) Sub Rule (2) he would have fulfilled the requirement of acquiring the test qualification within three years from the date of the order. We notice that he was not given temporary promotion either in 1999 or in 2000. He was given promotion only in the year 2002 after he actually acquired the qualification. 20. We find some difficulty in the path of the acceptance of contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Rule 28(bb) which according to the petitioner is to be ignored in our view stands against the acceptance of the petitioner's contentions. He was given promotion only in the year 2002 after he actually acquired the qualification. 20. We find some difficulty in the path of the acceptance of contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Rule 28(bb) which according to the petitioner is to be ignored in our view stands against the acceptance of the petitioner's contentions. In fact the principle which is incorporated in Rule 28(bb) is a barrier against arbitrary action on the part of the State in the matter of ignoring the just and legal claims of the employees with reference to the title they have when the vacancies arise. In other words, whoever is qualified as on the date when the vacancies occurred is entitled to be considered for promotion. If the senior is not qualified on the date of occurrence of vacancies subject to the proviso in Rule 28 and the junior is qualified then junior is entitled to be promoted. There may be delay in passing orders for promotion. Such delay cannot work against the interests or destroying the rights which accrue to the concerned qualified employee. The authority may exercise power honestly as noted in Varghese v. State of Kerala ( 1981 KLT 458 ) and still he can lapse into error. 21. The petitioner stakes a claim for being promoted and also to be accorded seniority over his juniors. The basis of the claim is Rule 13A(1). Rule 13A(1) undoubtedly provides a concession to the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community. By virtue of the concession even though the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community not qualified with reference to the special or departmental tests contemplated under Rule 13 he is exempted temporarily from passing such tests and he is given the benefit of what is called temporary promotion which we have already explained. In the case of the petitioner if he is staking claim on the basis of Rule 13A(1) necessarily he must also at the same time point out the date of the vacancy against which he is basing his claim. If the petitioner is staking his claim to the vacancy which actually arose in the year 1998 then he cannot stake the claim except by invoking Rule 13A(1) which means that he must also get the benefit of exemption from the date in 1998. If the petitioner is staking his claim to the vacancy which actually arose in the year 1998 then he cannot stake the claim except by invoking Rule 13A(1) which means that he must also get the benefit of exemption from the date in 1998. This means the period of exemption will start running from the date on which the notional vacancies arose. If that is done as found by the Tribunal the petitioner having acquired the test qualification only on 30.5.2002 which is beyond the period of three years from 1998 he must necessarily face reversion and he cannot certainly therefore claim the benefit of seniority as against juniors respondents 4 to 5 who were qualified. 22. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that the date of occurrence of vacancies governs the appointments to be made and therefore, the exemption also would operate from the said dates and therefore though the words used in sub rule 2 of Rule 13A would suggest that it is from the date of appointment we must understand it as meaning the date of the appointment as understood when one reads Rule 13A(2) in conjunction with Rule 28 (bb), in other words, the “order of appointment made” read with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancy. When the matter is to be decided with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancies then there is no question of accepting the petitioner's complaint that had he being given promotion with reference to the date on which his juniors were promoted and since he had acquired qualification within three years from the said date he could have regularized the promotion. The petitioner in one breath seeks seniority over his juniors with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancies and yet in another seeks to retain benefit under Rule 13A with reference to the date of the order appointing him. His claim in this regard can be processed and considered only with reference to the mandate under Rule 28 (bb). 23. We are not impressed by the reliance placed on sub rule (4) in Rule 13A. Rule 13A(4) contemplates grant of extension for the period of exemption having regard to the number of times tests was held. His claim in this regard can be processed and considered only with reference to the mandate under Rule 28 (bb). 23. We are not impressed by the reliance placed on sub rule (4) in Rule 13A. Rule 13A(4) contemplates grant of extension for the period of exemption having regard to the number of times tests was held. Such a case was not laid up before the Tribunal that because of the number of times the tests were held in this particular case he was entitled to an exemption. Secondly if any such case is possible in a particular case the interpretation placed by this court may not stand in the way of the department considering such a request. The learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt would point out the anomaly that may arise if we accept the view which found favour with the Tribunal which is namely, in many departments the employee may not be aware of the vacancies that will actually occur. In many departments there is long standing litigation in particular the learned counsel for the petitioner had draw our attention to the revenue department and he submits that in such a scenario to expect the matter to be finalised with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancy will be to deny the precious rights which are made available to the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community. In other words, if matters are predicated with reference to the date of actual appointment there will be certainty and the employee would be in a position to work and pass the tests which are provided in Rule 13 it is contended. Avoidable delay and illegalities in the matter of appointments by way of promotion are well known to exist in various departments. It may be true that it may take time ultimately to settle the disputes. But when the disputes with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancies are settled if the person is found entitled to promotion invoking Rule 13 A(1), with the condition that he would have to acquire the qualifications within the period mentioned we would think that it would result in reaching justice to the categories mentioned in Rule 13A(1)and also the other members of the service. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the original petition. Petition fails. Dismissed.