JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. Whether the petitioners who failed to meet the requirements in clearing the departmental test and obtained promotion in terms of Rule 13A of Part II, KS & SSR are entitled to be granted any exemption sought for with reference to Rule 39 of the said Rules as a matter of right, is the point to be considered by this Court. 2. The petitioners herein who belong to SC/ST communities respectively joined the service of the respondents as 'LDC' in the year 2002 and 2001 respectively. The petitioners were given promotion as UDC in the year 2007, invoking Rule 13A of the above Rules, giving a march over the seniors, subject to the condition that they would clear the departmental test within three years. Annexure A1 is the promotion given to the first petitioner, whereas Annexure A2 is the promotion in the case of the second petitioner. 3. While they were continuing in service as above, the petitioners were served with Annexures A3 and A4 show-cause notices as to why they shall not be reverted for not having cleared the departmental tests. It was answered by the petitioners by submitting Annexure A6 reply, wherein it was pointed out that the first petitioner had already cleared all the Departmental tests in January 2013 and that the second petitioner had cleared the same in January, 2016. The replies were considered but found unsatisfactory and accordingly, Annexure A7 order of reversion was passed, which was subjected to challenge in O.A.No.778 of 2015. 4. The petitioners were enjoying the benefit of the interim order of stay granted by the Tribunal in the above O.A. Pursuant to Annexure A11 order passed by the Tribunal, to cause the representation to be considered, the matter was dealt with by the Government, who passed Annexure A13 order holding that the petitioners/applicants were not entitled to have the benefits sought for. This made the petitioners to approach the Tribunal again by filing O.A(EKM)No.806 of 2016, wherein Annexure A14 order was passed to cause the matter to be considered in terms of Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR as projected by the applicant. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered again by the Government who passed Annexure A15 order rejecting the representation and this led to O.A.(EKM)No.2372 of 2017 preferred by the petitioners. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered again by the Government who passed Annexure A15 order rejecting the representation and this led to O.A.(EKM)No.2372 of 2017 preferred by the petitioners. The claim was opposed from the part of the Department and after hearing both the sides, and also with reference to the relevant provisions of law, the Tribunal held as per Ext.P1, that the claim was unfounded and that there was nothing wrong on the part of the Government in having passed Annexure A15. Thus the O.A. came to be dismissed, which is the subject matter of challenge in this Original Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are eligible to have the benefit of Rule 13AA, which contains a 'non-obstante clause' and as such, the Government is having sufficient power to have the period of exemption to be extended, which was not invoked in the case of the petitioners; nor appreciated by the Tribunal. The next submission is that, before initiation of the proceedings, the first petitioner had cleared the tests in January 2013 and as such, he stands on a different footing, whose claim ought to have been considered favourably by the Government/Tribunal. There is a further contention that, in the case of the first petitioner he had crossed the age of 50 years on 01.05.2017 (the date of birth being 01.05.1967) and as it stands so, the first petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of Rule 13B of Part II, KS & SSR to have permanent exemption. 6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioners as to the applicability of 'Rule 13AA' is quite wrong and misconceived. Such power vested with the Government is to grant exemption to a specific period from not clearing the test, to be ordered in appropriate cases. The said power has to be exercised within a period of three years. For convenience of reference, the said rule is extracted below: “13AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may, by order, exempt for a specified period, any member or members, belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and already in service, from passing the tests referred to in rule 13 or rule 13A of the said Rules. For convenience of reference, the said rule is extracted below: “13AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may, by order, exempt for a specified period, any member or members, belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and already in service, from passing the tests referred to in rule 13 or rule 13A of the said Rules. Provided that this rule shall not be applicable to tests prescribed for purpose of promotion of the executive staff below the rank of Sub Inspectors belonging to Police Department” 7. It is true that there is a non-obstante clause in Rule 13AA. But this has to be read in the light of the stipulation as contained in Rule 13/13A, as specifically adverted thereto. By virtue of the mandate under Rule 13A(2), it is obligatory for the employee concerned to have cleared the departmental test within a period of three years and the concession/exemption given to have promotion in preference to seniors, by virtue of the status as SC/ST community, is during this period of three years. If the employee who avails the benefit of Rule 13A promotion, fails to meet the obligation in passing the departmental test on time, the further course of action is stipulated under sub-rule(2) of Rule 13A, which reads as follows: “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 a person belonging to any of the Schedules Castes or Scheduled Tribes.” 8. 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 a person belonging to any of the Schedules Castes or Scheduled Tribes.” 8. Admittedly, the petitioners could not clear the Departmental test within the period of three years from the date of granting promotion and they cleared the test only in January, 2013 and January, 2016 respectively. The effect of Rule 13A(2) is that, the persons/employees who fail to meet the requirements of clearing the test within the period of three years, shall be reverted. As such, the petitioners were liable to be reverted, immediately after expiry of three years stipulated under Rule 13A(2). It was in the said background, that Annexures A3 and A4 show-cause notices were issued and after considering Annexures A5 and A6 replies, reversion was ordered for not meeting the requirements in terms of the relevant provisions of the statute, as per Annexure A7 dated 16.04.2015. 9. It is true that the matter was further caused to be considered as per Annexure A11 judgment, leading to Annexure A13 rejection, which was further ordered to be considered in the light of Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR (as projected by the petitioner in O.A.No.806 of 2016), as per Anenxure A14 verdict passed by the Tribunal. It is relevant to note that at no point of time in the earlier round of litigation, had the petitioners ever raised a case that their grievance was to be considered with reference to Rule 13AA. The general power under Rule 39 of Part II, KS & SSR was sought to be pressed into service, which was directed to be considered by the Tribunal as per Annexure A14. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered by the Government, who passed Annexure A15 rejecting the claim, which formed the basis of the O.A., leading to Ext.P1 verdict. The petitioners are liable to be non-suited on this ground alone, as there cannot be prayers on installment basis. That apart, the general power under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR was sought to be invoked, which in turn was considered by the Government, declining the relief while passing Annexure A15 dated 29.08.2017. The petitioners are liable to be non-suited on this ground alone, as there cannot be prayers on installment basis. That apart, the general power under Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR was sought to be invoked, which in turn was considered by the Government, declining the relief while passing Annexure A15 dated 29.08.2017. That apart, we find considerable force in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the power of the Government under Rule 13AA, if at all to be exercised, had to be 'within a period of three years' stipulated under Rule 13A(2). There is no case for the petitioners that they had ever sought for any extension of time because of any compelling circumstances, like non-conducting of test on time or that they were physically prevented from participating in the test at the relevant time etc. and hence, there was no need, necessity or occasion for the Government to have considered such an instance to grant exemption for a specific period as envisaged under Rule 13AA. The contention raised by the petitioners in this Original Petition in this regard should fail. 10. However, a new contention is mooted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the case of the first petitioner has to be dealt with in a different manner, in so far as he has crossed the age of 50 years on 01.05.2017 and that he is entitled to have the benefit of Rule 13B of Part II of the KS & SSR. The said rules reads as follows: “13B: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, persons in Government service who attain the age of 50 years and who have put in 25 years of service shall be eligible for permanent exemption from passing the obligatory departmental tests other than those prescribed as qualification in the Special Rules for all purposes such as promotion, appointment as full member of a service etc. Provided that persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be eligible for the permanent exemption when they attain the age of 50 years. Provided further that this rule shall not be applicable to tests prescribed for purposes of promotion of the executive staff belonging to the Police Department. Provided that persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be eligible for the permanent exemption when they attain the age of 50 years. Provided further that this rule shall not be applicable to tests prescribed for purposes of promotion of the executive staff belonging to the Police Department. Provided also that Ex-Servicemen employees of the Rajya Sainik Board Department who attain the age of 45 years and who have successfully completed probation shall be permanently exempted from passing the tests prescribed for promotion irrespective of the period of their service. xx xx xx Provided also that persons in Government service who attain the age of 50 years on or after the 26th day of August 1981, shall be eligible for permanent exemption from passing the obligatory departmental tests other than those prescribed as essential qualification in the Special Rules for all purposes such as promotion, appointment as full member of a service etc., irrespective of their total period of service. ” 11. The above rule contemplates crossing of 50 years and satisfaction of a minimum of 25 years for granting the benefit of permanent exemption from clearing the departmental tests. But in the case of a person belonging to SC/ST, the situation is taken care of by the 'proviso', which says that in the case of a member belonging to that category, permanent exemption will have to be given, once the employee crosses the age of 50 years. Virtually, this is to the effect that the minimum qualifying service of 25 years is not necessary in the case of a member belonging to SC/ST category. The learned Government Pleader points out that the benefit under such circumstance will come to be accrued on the first petitioner only on completion of 50 years, i.e. on 01.05.2017. But, since the first petitioner has already qualified the Departmental test in January, 2013 and the second petitioner has qualified in January, 2016, the benefit with reference to attaining the age of 50 years is insignificant and they are entitled to get the benefit of further promotion immediately after qualifying the departmental test. In the above circumstance, we find that Ext.P1 verdict passed by the Tribunal is perfectly in order. Interference is declined and the Original Petition is dismissed.