Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.

Can the period of training, which does not count for probation or grant of increment, be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of promotion of a Technical Assistant to the post of Assistant Geologist? The Learned single Judge has answered this question in the affirmative and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the order, respondent Nos. 5 and 7 in the writ petition have filed these two appeals. The facts may be briefly noticed.

2. The first respondent was selected for appointment as a Technical Assistant by the Public Service Commission. On August, 8, 1991 he was advised by the Commission to join as a Technical Assistant in the Office of the Director, Mining and Geology. He had reported for duty on September 23, 1991. However, he had to undergo training for a period of six months. On completion, the probation had commenced on March 23, 1992. It was declared that he had completed the period of probation satisfactorily on May 25, 1994.

3. In the year 1995, vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Geologist became available. Three years of service as a Technical Assistant was an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Geologist. The Department took the view that the first respondent had not completed the requisite period of service. Thus, all the available vacancies were filled up by direct recruitment. Five persons including the appellants in these two appeals were appointed by direct recruitment. The first respondent submitted a representation. Vide letter dated April 6, 1995 he was informed that this regular service had commenced on March 23, 1992. Thus, he had become eligible to be considered for promotion only from March 23, 1995. A copy of this order is on record as Ext.P3. The representation was accordingly rejected. He submitted another representation on July 4, 1995. It was rejected vide order dated September 1, 1995. A copy is on record as Ext.P4. Undaunted, the first respondent submitted a representation dated December 23, 1995 to the Government. It was rejected vide order dated June 10, 1997. A copy is on record as Ext.P5. Ultimately, the first respondent was promoted as an Assistant Geologist on September 3, 1997. A copy of this order is on record as Ext.P6.

4. The respondent felt aggrieved by the action of the Department in not granting him promotion with effect from February 6, 1995. Thus, he approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He inter alia prayed that the orders rejecting his representations, copies of which had been produced as Exts.P3 to P5, be quashed. He further prayed that an appropriate order be issued declaring that he was eligible to be promoted with effect from September 23, 1994 and should have been actually granted promotion on February 6, 1995 when the fifth respondent was appointed. He also claimed the consequential benefits.

5. The claim as made in the Writ Petition was contested. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government by the Deputy Secretary. The respondent-writ petitioner had filed a reply affidavit with which three additional documents were produced as Exts.P7 to P9. The document at Ext.P7 was a letter dated August 8, 1991 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. A copy of the order dated February 20, 1992 by which the respondent's services were regularized after police verification report was produced as Ext.P8. By letter dated March 29, 1999 issued by the Director of Mining and Geology, the requirement regarding 'training' as prescribed in the rules was deleted in so far as the post of Assistant Geologist was concerned. A copy of this letter was produced as Ext.P9.

6. The matter was considered by the learned single Judge. On an examination of the Rules etc., it was held that the respondent-writ petitioner's service had to be reckoned from September 23, 1991 as "qualifying service for the purpose of promotion, thus including the per