JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. :— These two appeals by special leave are by the State of Maharashtra. They are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 12th January, 1983 by which the High Court issued the following two directives to the State Government :

"(1) To recast the Revised/Final seniority list dated 20-12-1982 vis-a-vis the persons shown in the category of Late Passing and assign them seniority strictly in accordance with Rule2 and the other Government orders referred to in Paragraph 96 of the judgment; and

(2) The seniority in the Superintendents. cadre so fixed should also be considered as seniority for further promotions."

2. The background to these directives is, in outline, this : Respondents 1 to 8 are Assistant Secretaries/ Section Officers/ Superintendents in different departments of the Government of Maharashtra. The State Government prescribed departmental examinations as a condition precedent for promotion to the cadre of Superintendents. The examinations were required to be conducted every year, and the officials have to pass within the stipulated period. Those who could not pass within the time-frame would lose their seniority but they will be promoted as and when they qualify themselves. The Government for some reason or the other could not hold the examinations every year. Particularly in 1968, 1969 and 1970, the Government did not hold the examinations. The Government, however, did not pass any order extending the period prescribed for passing the examinations, nor promoted the seniors subject to their passing the examination. The juniors who qualified themselves were promoted overlooking the case of seniors and seniors were only promoted upon their passing the examination. In the cadre of Superintendents, however, the Government revised the seniority list so as to reflect the rankings in the lower cadre irrespective of the date of promotion. The validity of the revision of seniority was challenged before the High Court. The High Court conceded the power to the Government to relax the rules relating to passing of the examination in case of hardship, but refused to recognise the power of the Government to give seniority to those who could not pass the examination within the time schedule. The High Court was of opinion that without specific orders of the Government relaxing the conditions of the rules, the persons could not be given seniority for Late Passing. There are also other reasons given by the High Court which we will presently consider. But before that, it is important that we should have a chronology of the relevant rules and resolutions of the Government. It is as follows :

On 22nd August, 1951, the Government made a resolution prescribing departmental examination for the members of the Upper Division of the Subordinate Secretariat Service, and further directing that only those persons who pass the examination should be promoted as Superintendents. The accompanying rules (The 1951 Rules) thereunder provided the procedure for passing the examination as well as the consequences of failure to pass the examination. On 24th August, 1955, the Government framed rules (The 1955 Rules) under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution specifically providing power to dispense with, or relax, the requirements of the operation of any rule regulating the conditions of service of Government servants; or of any class thereof if it causes undue hardships in any particular case. On 15th January, 1962, the Government issued a circular purporting to restrict the scope of the rule permitting relaxation only in respect of travelling allowance rules, leave rules, etc. The circular also clarified that the 1955 Rules could not be invoked for conferring benefit on an individual by relaxing the conditions relating to recruitment, promotion, grant of extension of service or re-employment. On 28th December, 1961, the Government made the revised rules in suppression of the 1951 Rules. They were b