( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is working as Junior assistant in the 2nd respondent-College, has filed this writ petition questioning the action of the 2nd respondent-College in promoting the 3rd respondent-Store-keeper as Senior Assistant in its Proceedings rc. No. 1a/96. dated 04-07-1996.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk-cum-Typist in the 2nd respondent- college and he possessed all the requisite qualifications for promotion to the post of senior Assistant by the end of the year 1989. While things stood thus, on 21-04-1993 a vacancy in the post of Senior Assistant has arisen due to the demise of the incumbent and the petitioner was kept in full additional charge of the post on 27-08-1993. Subsequently, when a vacancy has arisen in the post of Superintendent, again he was kept in full additional charge of that post on 01-10-1995. It is also his case that from 1994 onwards, he was making representations to promote him as Senior Assistant on regular basis as he was the only qualified person to hold that post at the time when the vacancy has arisen. But the respondents did not pass any orders on his representation all these years. In the meantime, the third respondent, who is working as a Storekeeper seemed to have passed departmental tests prescribed for the post of senior Assistant. Subsequently, a D. P. C. (Departmental Promotion Committee) meeting was held on 04-07-1996 and on the ground that the 3rd respondent was senior, he was promoted as Senior Assistant on regular basis by the respondents by the impugned order, which is now assailed in this Writ Petition.

( 3 ) THE Court is called upon to decide whether the appointment of the 3rd respondent in the year 1996 in a vacancy that has arisen in 1993 is in accordance with law. Though I have given sufficient time to the respondents to produce their Rules governing the service conditions of its employees, they failed to do so. On the other hand, from the impugned order it is seen that the respondents are following the rules applicable to the Government servants and the promotion to the 3rd respondent was given under Rule 37 (A) (1) of State and Subordinate Service Rules. Hence, the issue has to be adjudicated with reference to the Ministerial Service Rules read with State and Subordinate Service rules (hereinafter called as general Rules ). Under Rule 4 of the Ministerial Service rules, appointment to any category, grade or post has to be made by promotion from any, immediately lower category, grade or post. Under Rule 4 (3) of the said Rules, all promotions to the posts shall be made on grounds of Seniority-cum-efficiency. Under rule 22 of the said Rules, one must pass intermediate Examination or any equivalent examination for appointment to the Service under the Ministerial Service Rules either by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer or by promotion. Rule 23 (2) prescribes special qualifications for appointment to the service. Under annexure-II to this Rule, Superintendents/ senior Assistants and Head Clerks have to pass Deputy Inspectors Test and Accounts test for Subordinate Officers-Part I. While the petitioner acquired the qualifications in the year 1989, the 3rd respondent acquired the qualifications in the year 1996. In fact, on 21-04-1993 when a vacancy in the post of senior Assistant has arisen due to the demise of the incumbent, the petitioner is the only candidate qualified for appointment to the post and in fact, he was not only kept in-charge of the post of Senior assistant, but also the next higher post i. e. , superintendent. The respondents waited till the 3rd respondent passed the departmental Examinations and issued the impugned order relying on the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education in rc. No. 1321/pci-1/92, dated 16-09-1992 wherein the private managements were informed that Junior Assistants, Typists, senior Typists and Store-keepers may be treated as a single