Radhakrishnan, J.

Learned single judge of this court referred all these cases to a Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the scope and ambit of Rule 13 B of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. Scope of the said rule earlier came up for consideration before a single judge of this court in K.A. Mathew v. State of Kerala and others (ILR 1985 (1) Kerala 657). Learned judge who referred the matter felt that some of the contentions raised by the petitioners were not considered by the learned single judge in Mathew's case. Consequently it was felt that an authoritative pronouncement on those aspects is necessary. Hence these cases are before us.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, we heard Senior counsel Sri. N. Dharmadan, Sri K.P. Dandapani, Sri K.R.B. Kaimal, Sri V. A. Mohammed,Com Sri. B. Reghunathan and Smt I. Sheela Devi and also learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Before we deal with the rival contentions raised by the counsel on either side, we may refer to the facts in O.P. No 18062 of 2000 which is taken as the leading case. Petitioners herein are Head Draftsman in the Survey and Land Records Wing of the Revenue Department. They completed 50 years of age in 1992 and had also put in 25 years of service and were given higher pay on completion of 25 years of service. They were all aspiring for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant.

4. There are also person holding the posts of Head Surveyor who are aspiring for promotion to the post of Superintendent. Post of Technical Assistant and Superintendent fall within the State service while the post of Head Surveyor falls within the subordinate Service. Rule 4(b) of the Survey and land Records Subordinate Service states that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the posts specified column (1) of the table below and by the method specified in column (2) unless he possesses the qualification or has passed the test specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof. Posts of Head Surveyor and Head Draftsman are all included in the table. Contention was raised by the petitioners that they had possessed the necessary qualification but some of them have not acquired pass in the necessary departmental tests. According to them since they attained 50 years of age and had completed 25 years of service, under Rule 13B of the General Rules Government exempted them from passing the obligatory departmental tests for promotion or appointment as full member of the service. Petitioners submit this is the practice followed by the Department for several years and persons similarly placed were given due promotion in the State service on permanent exemption from departmental tests.

5. Petitioners submit that respondents did not put forward their claim for promotion to the post of technical Assistants in the D.P.C which met on 30.3.2000 and were not shown in the list of officers qualified. D.P.C. did not call for the records of the petitioners. On enquiry it was understood that respondents 1 and 2 had relied on a letter of clarification issued by the Government Secretary on 7.3.2000 to the Director of Survey. Reference was also made to the clarification letter dated 9.12.1987 which states that tests such as Account Test Higher etc., prescribed under the head “qualifications†are basic qualifications like educational qualification for appointment/ promotion to the post whereas “tests†prescribed in the Special Rules are obligatory departmental tests. Person attaining the age of 50 years shall get exemption under rule 13 B, Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules part II only from passing the obligatory departmental tests prescribed in the Special Rules and he shall not be exempted from the tests prescribed under ‘ qualifications’ for appointment/ promotion to the post. Departmental promotion committee later prepared list for filling up the existing vacancies of Technical assistants without considering the claims of