Abdul Gafoor, J.

The first two writ appeals are against the common judgment in W.P.(C)Nos.19803/05 and 25902/05. The issue raised in W.A.No.1434/06 is also same as in other two appeals.

2. Shortly put, the point arising for consideration in these cases is whether ‘Criminal Judicial Test’ prescribed as an alternate qualification to a Degree in Law for appointment to the post Tahsildar as per Rule 6(a) of the Special Rules for Kerala Revenue Service, is a ‘special test’ or not. If the answer is in the affirmative, the writ appeals have to be dismissed. On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, the impugned judgment shall have to be reversed.

3. As the arguments raised before the learned single judge are re-agitated before us, we have to re-appreciate the facts. The spectrum of the facts in these cases is as follows:

4. The contesting incumbents belong to the category of Deputy Tahsildar born on the Kerala Revenue Subordinate Service. All of them claim promotion to the post of Tahsildar governed by the Special Rules for the Kerala Revenue Service (Special Rules).

5. First of all, we will consider W.A.Nos.2353 and 2354/06. The petitioners in the writ petitions, which led to these writ appeals, are seniors to the appellants. Admittedly, the writ petitioners belong to schedule castes. They were superseded while preparing the select list for appointment to the post of Tahsildar, on the ground that they did not pass ‘Criminal Judicial Test’. Thereupon, they made representations. Those were turned down. So they approached this court.

6. According to them, they were entitled to exemption from passing the said test by reason of a Government Order issued in terms of Rule 13AA read with Rule 13AB of the General Rules in Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules {hereinafter referred to as “the General Rules”}.

7. This was resisted by the official respondents, who alone figured as respondents in the writ petitions that ‘Criminal Judicial Test’, which is prescribed as an alternate qualification for Law Degree for appointment to the post of Tahsildar was the basic qualification. One was not entitled to exemption from such basic qualification. Therefore, the writ petitioners were not entitled to test exemption and they were rightly superseded.

8. But the learned single Judge, relying on the decision of a Division Bench consisting of one of us (Abdul Gafoor, J.) In W.A.No.1138/06 and connected cases and also referring to the decision in State of Kerala v. Chathan {2005(1) K.L.T. 75} found that, the writ petitioners were entitled to exemption from ‘Criminal Judicial Test’.

9. The appellants were not parties to the writ petition. By reason of this direction, according to them, they are adversely affected, as they are the persons, who have passed the test and are fully qualified for promotion. The judgment impugned will enable the writ petitioners to supersede qualified hands like them. Therefore, these writ appeals with leave.

10. Their contention is that the view taken by the learned single Judge that the writ petitioners being schedule castes would get exemption from ‘Criminal Judicial Test’, was not justified. According to them, it is a basic qualification from which no exemption is provided by the Rules.

11. The writ petitioners contend that Criminal Judicial Test cannot be a basic qualification. It is only a test conducted by the Public Service Commission. It comes within the purview of exemption provided for in Rule 13AA and 13AB. So the view contention takes by the learned single Judge is not liable to be interfered with.

12. Qualification to the post of Tahsildar is as provided in Rule 6 of the Special Rules, which reads as under:

“No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service, unless he—

(a) holds a degree in law of a recognized University or has passed the Criminal Judicial Test; and

(b) has passed the following

departmental tests:-

(i) Revenue test (All parts);

(ii) Account Test (Lower) or

Account Test