JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are working as Agricultural Extension Officers for the following relief: “To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent not considering our names for promotion to the post of Agricultural Officer in Zone-IV contrary to the Judgment of the Hon”ble Court in W.P.No.1648 of 2019 and batch and contrary to the Rule 5 © and 6(g) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh State and Sub-Ordinate Service Rules-Revised 1996 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the names of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Agricultural Officer in Zone-IV and pass…” 2. This Court has heard Sri K Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 3. The petitioners before this Court are working as Agricultural Extension Officers. Initially, they were denied promotion on the ground that they were diploma holders. A memo was issued on 12.05.2017 fixing their seniority. The same was challenged by filing OA.No.2886 of 2018 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their case. Thereafter, they filed a batch of writ petitions before the Division Bench which by its order dated 25.10.2019 held in their favour and directed the respondents to consider the seniority of the petitioners from the initial date of appointment. The order of the Tribunal was thus set aside. 4. In this period, the petitioners completed their B.Sc.(AG) degree course. However, their names were not considered in the seniority list that was prepared because the certificates were submitted after 1st September of that year. The respondents relied upon Rule 5(c) of the State Subordinate Service Rules which prescribed that the 1st September shall be the qualifying date every year. On this essential ground, their cases were rejected. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. This is the factual matrix. 5. Learned senior counsel Sri Krishna Murthy argues that the plain language interpretation of Rule 6(b) of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 makes it very clear that 1st September could “ordinarily” be considered as the base date for estimating the vacancies. He also argues that the proviso to the said Rule gives the option to those who have subsequently passed the test to be included. He also argues that the proviso to the said Rule gives the option to those who have subsequently passed the test to be included. Relying upon Rule 6(g) (ii), he points out that persons, who have not possessed the prescribed qualifications at the time of previous panel, can also be considered for inclusion, if they are qualified on the date prescribed. He submits that petitioners have the requisite qualification which is a Bachelor’s degree from a recognized University. Due to Covid, it is stated that the petitioners could not submit their degree certificates in time. He argues that the certificates were in fact submitted a short time thereafter. 6. Learned senior counsel points out that for being promoted as Agricultural Officer by transfer or promotion, the candidate should possess a degree of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture from a recognized University. Relying upon the documents filed and also the counter affidavit, the learned senior counsel argues that there is a few days gap after 1st September, 2019 and the petitioners had submitted their certificates to show the acquisition of the qualification on various dates ending with 23rd September, 2019. He argues that the date is not a strict mandatory date and the use of the word “ordinarily” makes it a flexible rule. He also submits that the Proviso provides an exception to the Rule permitting the petitioners to file their proof of acquisition of qualification after 1st September also. Relying upon the cases reported in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 12 SCC 254 and Kailash Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1346 where the word “ordinarily” was considered. Learned senior counsel submits that the word “ordinarily” means normally and that there can always be “exceptions”. Therefore, he submits that as vacancies are available, the writ petition should be allowed. 7. In reply to this, Smt.G.Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for Services-II argues in line with what is stated in her counter. The counter does not in a strict sense dispute the qualification of the petitioners. It is very clearly submitted that the final seniority list was prepared on 17.09.2020 and that the last date for submission of certificates is 01.09.2020. Therefore, learned counsel relying upon Rule 6 argues that since the petitioners did not submit their applications in time to prove the acquisition of their qualifications, they cannot be considered for inclusion in the panel. It is very clearly submitted that the final seniority list was prepared on 17.09.2020 and that the last date for submission of certificates is 01.09.2020. Therefore, learned counsel relying upon Rule 6 argues that since the petitioners did not submit their applications in time to prove the acquisition of their qualifications, they cannot be considered for inclusion in the panel. The essence of this defence is spelt out in paras 6, 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit. It is not denied that the petitioners pursued their B.Sc. agricultural course as in- service candidates and completed their course in the month of September, 2020. 8. In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel, the questions that arise are: (a) whether the date 1st September, 2020 is fixed or sacrosanct and (b) whether the petitioners are entitled to seek relief. Since there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners have acquired qualification for B.Sc. Agriculture, in the opinion of this Court, the issue turns around the interpretation of Rule 6(b). This Rule is as follows: 6. Method of preparation of Panels: (b) The panel of candidates for appointment by transfer to a service or a class of service in any case, where the Commission is not consulted on the suitability of a candidate for such appointment under sub-clause (b) of Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India or for promotion, shall be prepared ordinarily during the months of September every year on the basis of estimate of vacancies sent in terms of sub-Rule (d). First September of the year shall be reckoned as the qualifying date to determine the eligibility of a candidate for such appointment, which shall cease to be in force on the afternoon of the 31st December of the succeeding year or till the next panel is prepared whichever is earlier and for the purpose of preparing the said panel, the zone of consideration shall be in the ratio of 1:3. The period from 1st September of the year to the 31st August of the succeeding year shall be reckoned for the purpose of determining the number of vacancies during the panel. The other relevant parts of the Rule are reproduced hereunder: 6(g) The following persons shall be considered for inclusion in any panel prepared under sub-Rules (b) and (c). The period from 1st September of the year to the 31st August of the succeeding year shall be reckoned for the purpose of determining the number of vacancies during the panel. The other relevant parts of the Rule are reproduced hereunder: 6(g) The following persons shall be considered for inclusion in any panel prepared under sub-Rules (b) and (c). (i) Persons who are qualified on the qualifying date including those who had been included in the previous panel of approved candidates but who have not commenced their probation. (ii) Persons who had not possessed the prescribed qualifications at the time of preparation of the previous panel, but who have since acquired such qualification and are qualified as on the qualifying date. 9. As rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel and as per the settled law, one of the primary Rules of interpretation is the plain language interpretation of a Rule. If this is adopted as the basis of interpretation of Rule 6(b), it is clear that the word “ordinarily” that is used is included with a specific purpose and it is not a surplus age. The reading of the Rule would make it clear that the list shall be prepared “ordinarily” during the months of September of every year. 1st September shall be reckoned as the qualifying date normally or in ordinary circumstances. This interpretation is as interpreted by the Hon”ble Supreme Court of India in Babubhai’s case (1 supra) at para 41 as follows: 41. The expression ordinarily means normally and it is used where there can be an exception. It means in the large majority of cases but not invariably. "Ordinarily" excludes "extra-ordinary" or "special circumstances". (vide: Kailash Chandra v. Union of India MANU/SC/0391/1961 : AIR 1961 SC 1346 ; Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana v. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay AIR 2001 SC 196 and State of A.P. v. Sarma Rao. 10. Similarly, in Kailash Chandra’s case (2 supra), in para 8, the Hon”ble Supreme Court held as follows: 8. This intention is made even more clear and beyond doubt by the use of the word "ordinarily". "Ordinarily" means "in the large majority of cases but not invariably". This itself emphasises the fact that the appropriate authority is not bound to retain the servant after he attains the age of 55 even if he continues to be efficient. This intention is made even more clear and beyond doubt by the use of the word "ordinarily". "Ordinarily" means "in the large majority of cases but not invariably". This itself emphasises the fact that the appropriate authority is not bound to retain the servant after he attains the age of 55 even if he continues to be efficient. The intention of the second clause therefore clearly is that while under the first clause the appropriate authority has the right to retire the servant who falls within clause (a) as soon as he attains the age of 55, it will, at that stage, consider whether or not to retain him further. 11. This option to retain for the further period of five years can only be exercised if the servant continues to be efficient; but in deciding whether or not to exercise this option the authority has to consider circumstances other than the question of efficiency also; in the absence of special circumstances he "should" retain the servant; but what are special circumstances is left entirely to the authority's decision. Thus, after the age of 55 is reached by the servant the authority has to exercise its discretion whether or not to retain the servant; and there is no right in the servant to be retained, even if he continues to be efficient. 12. The word “ordinarily” in its normal parlance means “normally”. Therefore, it is clear that Rule 6 (b) should itself read as normally during the month of September every year, the list should be prepared which leads to the conclusion that there could be situations when the same is not possible or if the ordinary circumstances are not present. The proviso to Rule 6(b) is as follows: Provided that if the number of candidates to be included in the panel falls short of the number of vacancies estimated such shortfall shall be made good by considering the claims of the other qualified and eligible candidates, if any, in the seniority list placed immediately below. The proviso to Rule 6(b) is as follows: Provided that if the number of candidates to be included in the panel falls short of the number of vacancies estimated such shortfall shall be made good by considering the claims of the other qualified and eligible candidates, if any, in the seniority list placed immediately below. Provided further that the panel of candidates so prepared shall be reviewed after a period of six months reckoned from the date of approval of the panel, for the purpose of considering the cases of such other persons whose names were not included in the panel prepared earlier for not passing the prescribed tests or for not having special qualifications prescribed under the Rules, if they have subsequently passed those tests or acquired the said qualifications and are otherwise found suitable for inclusion in the panel of the year. No such review of list of approved candidates shall, however, be undertaken where no tests or special qualifications are prescribed under the Rules as condition precedent for promotion or appointment by transfer: Provided also that no panel of candidates need be prepared: This proviso makes it clear that if the candidates have subsequently passed the tests or acquired the qualifications, for inclusion in the panel of that year, their names can also be considered after a period of six months from the date of approval. The proviso as per the settled law on the subject carves out an “exception” to the General Rule or the section. The law is very well settled and need not be repeated here once again. Therefore, a reading of this proviso would make it clear that people who have subsequently passed the tests or acquired qualification can be included in the “panel” of the year. In addition, sub-Rule 6g(ii) also states that people who have since acquired the qualification as on the qualifying date can also be included in the list. A reading of these Rules together makes it clear that the words used in Rule 6(b) are not mandatory and that depending on the situation and the exigencies the word “ordinarily” can be interpreted. As the Hon”ble Supreme Court has said, the word “ordinarily” means “normal” and so there can always be exceptions. A reading of these Rules together makes it clear that the words used in Rule 6(b) are not mandatory and that depending on the situation and the exigencies the word “ordinarily” can be interpreted. As the Hon”ble Supreme Court has said, the word “ordinarily” means “normal” and so there can always be exceptions. Therefore, by a cumulative reading of all these clauses in seriatim and as there is no serious dispute about the other facts, this Court holds that the rejection or the failure of the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the list only on the ground that they submitted their certificates after 1st September, 1990 is held to be incorrect. 13. Factually also the fact that the Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted everybody’s life is also not in doubt more so from March, 2020 onwards. This is also a factor on which notice can be taken. It is also clear that prior to 17th September, 1990, the petitioners have addressed letters bringing out these issues to the notice of the respondents. The letter dated 25.06.2020 states the position clearly about the delay due to Covid. In between 14.09.2020 to 21.09.2020 the marls list, provisional certificates were submitted to the respondents through proper channel. The final seniority list as can be seen from the endorsements was electronically signed on 17.09.2020 and dispatched on 18.09.2020. Thus it is clear that the so-called delay is not inordinate, long or deliberate. The fact that the Covid-19 Pandemic delayed the petitioners cannot also be totally lost sight of. The petitioners cannot be penalized for the delayed receipt of their certificates. The Pandemic has upset everybody’s life. The petitioners or the University in which they studied are no exception. The delay even if it is reckoned from 1st September is not inordinate or very long. Before the final list is prepared, they have addressed letters and within a few days thereafter they have submitted their certificates. 14. In addition to the above Para 9 of the counter also makes it clear that the rules were relaxed by the Government as a special case for 15 leftover officers of the same grade who did not have the prescribed qualification on 23.09.2020 which is after the preparation of the seniority list (17.09.2020). Denial of the similar treatment to the petitioners would amount to discrimination. Denial of the similar treatment to the petitioners would amount to discrimination. The only fault of the petitioners (who have acquired the required educational qualification) is the delayed submission of documents by a few days If the educational qualifications could be relaxed after the final seniority list is prepared this court holds that similar benefit must be extended to the petitioners also. Therefore, both in fact and in law, the petitioners are entitled to a relief as prayed for. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the names of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Agricultural Officer in Zone-IV. 15. When the arguments were being concluded, it was pointed out that out of 148 posts, 144 are filled up. There are four vacancies. It is stated that two more Officers died/expired due to Covid. Therefore, it is submitted that there are six vacancies still available. The respondents are directed to look into this aspect and that as the writ petition is allowed, they are directed to grant relief to the petitioners. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.