*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY + WRIT PETITION NO : 22978 of 2008 AND BATCH % 18-12-2008 # S.BHEEM PRASAD & OTHS … PETITIONERS VS. $ STATE OF A.P., rep. By its Secretary to Govt., Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyd. & oths … RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI.J.R.MANOHAR RAO ^ Counsel for the Respondents: GOVT. PLEADER FOR IRRIGATION & COMM.AREA DEV. < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. AIR 1996 SC 2397 2. 2000(8) SCC 182 3. 2003(1) ALD 132 4. 2004(3) SCC 767 5. AIR 1990 (SC) 933 6. 2003(8) SCC 1 7. AIR 2001 SCW 2312 8. AIR 1959 SC 960 9. AIR 1955 SC 376 10. AIR 1957 SC 907 11. AIR 1987 SC 117 12. 2001(3) ALD 235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22978 of 2008 Between: 1 S.Bheem Prasad S/o.S.Sundar Rao Quality Control sub Divison, o/o.Executive Engineer Quality Control & TRSS Divison, Lakshminagar colony Saidabad, Hyderabad 2 T.R.Raghu Ram S/o.T.V.Rama Swamy Dam Safety Division, O/o.Chief Engineer, C.D.O.Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat Hyderabad 2 Engineer -in-Chief (Admn.wing), Irrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad 3 B.Sunder Zone-IV,O/o.Deputy Executive Engineer, Huzurnagar Sub Divfision,Suryapet (HQ), I.B.Division,Nalgonda 4 G.Balaji Zone -IV,O/o.Executive Engineer, AMRP, Divison, No.5, G.V.Gudem,Nalgonda 5 B.Ramulu Zone -IV,O/o.Executive Engineer, Divison No.1 AMRP Gurrampod, Nalgonda district .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to t o issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to impugned judgment of the Hon`ble AP Administrative Tribunal dated 28.7.2008 in OA.No.562 of 2007 and quash the same and further declare the impugned Government Memo No.8477/Ser.I.2/2006-9 dated 20.1.2007 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive engineers and other higher categories basing on the ranking assigned in the A.P.P.S.C.and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. WRIT PETITION NO : 23404 of 2008 Between: 1 Mirza Nazir Hussain S/o. M.Abbas Hussain O/o. Executive Engineer, Division No.4, FFC-1, Rekurthy Road, Kothapalli, K'nagar Dist. (presently working as I/c Dy.Executive Engineer, O/o. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. 2 Allam Praveen Kumar S/o.A.Veera Swamy O/o. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, presently working in the O/o Executive Engineer, SYP Division No.3, LMD Colony, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of A.P. represented by its Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.Wing) Irrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad dated 6.8.2007 in O.A.No. 558 of 2007 and the impugned Memo No. 8477/Ser.1.2/2006-9 dated 20.1.2007 and quash the same in so far the petitioners are concerned by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, bad and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the higher categories by taking into account their initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO : 23093 of 2008 Between: B.Nanda S/o.B.Pandya O/o. Executive Engineer, SRBC, Quality Control and Inspection, Nandyal, Kurnool District, presently working Dy. Executive Engineer, O/o. Exe. Engineer, K.C. Canal Divn., Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. represented by its Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Engineer-in-Chief (Admn. Wing), Irrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 6.8.2007 in O.A.No.301 of 2007 and the impugned Memo No. 28307/Ser.I(2)/2005-1 dated 21.9.2005 and the consequential Proceedings No. Rc/E.N.C./D1/63420/95 dated 22.3.2006 and quash the same by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, bad and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher categories by taking into account his initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. WRIT PETITION NO : 16801 of 2008 Between: S.Sudhakar S/o.Subba Rao Executive Engineer Telugu Ganga Project Division Nandayal Kurnool District(Presently Deputy Executive Engineer O/o. the Executive Engineer Telugu Ganga Project Division No.1 Velugodu,Kurnool District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P rep.by its Secretary to Government Irregation and CAD Department Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Engineer-In Chief (Admn.Wing) Irregation & CAD Department Erramanzil,Hyderabad ....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ,order direction more in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the rescords relating to impugned judgment of the Hon'ble A.P Administrative Tribunal Dt.28-7-2008 in O.A No.690 of 2007 and quash the same futher declare the impugned Government Memo No.32511/Ser.I(2)/2004-13 dt.26-6-2006 and the consequential proceedings No.Rc/ENC/D1/28886/93 dt.19-7-2006 issued by the Engineer-in Chief (Admn.Wing)I& CAD Department Hyderbad and consequetly set aside the same with a direction to the repondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and other higher categories besing on the ranking assigned in the A.P.P.S.C and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. WRIT PETITION NO : 17219 of 2008 Between: 1 B.Jagan, S/o. B.Dharmendar, O/o. Executive Engineer, F.F.C. Division No.III, LMD Colony, Karimnagar. 2 T.Ramesh Babu, S/o. T.Rajaiah, O/o. Executive Engineer, KNR Project, Kaddam(Post & Mandal) Adilabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, I & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022. 2The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.Wing), I & CAD Department, Errammanzil, Hyderabad. 3S.Sreenivasa Naik, Asst.Ex.Engineer, O/o. HLC(IOC)Division, Ananthapur, 4S.Viswanatham, O/o. HNSS Division-6, Ananthapur. 5B.Sreenivas Naik, O/O. Engineer-in-chief, P & M Cell, Errammanzil, Hyderabad, 6G.Balaji, Zone-VI , O/o. Ex.Engineer, AMPP Division No.5, G.V.Gudem, Nalgonda District. 7B.Sunder, Zone-VI , O/o.Dy.Ex.Engineer, Huzurnagar Sub Division, Suryapet(HQ), I.B.Division, Nalgonda. 8K.Devanand, O/O. MGKLI Division No.1 Nagar Kurnool, M.Nagar District. 9A.Suryanarayana Reddy, O/o. DEE, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 'Certiorari' calling for the records relating to O.A.No.7069/2007 dated 28-07-2008 by the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal and set side the same as unjust and contrary to law and also set aside the Memo.No.8477/Ser.1.2./2006-9, dated 20.01.2007 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to restore the date of commencement of probation of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers as 23.01.1996 and 16.05.1994 and fix the seniority of the petitioners accordingly and in terms of ranking assigned by the APPSC with all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO : 17315 of 2008 Between: 1 K.Radhakrishna S/o.K.Parameswara Chary Now I/c Dy.EE O/o. Executive Engineer, Division No.1, GVC-I, SRSP, Metpally, Karimnagar District. 2 K.Bansilal S/o.K.Jayaram I/c Dy.EE O/o. Executive Engineer, I.B. Division (I&CAD) Sanga Reddy, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, I &CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.wing) I & CAD Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to O.A.No.718/2007 dated 31.7.2008 by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal and set aside the same as unjust and contrary to law including the order passed in OA No.557/2007 and batch dated 28.07.2008 by the Hon'ble Tribunal and also set aside the Memo.No.8477/Ser.1.2/2006-9, dated 20.01.2007 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to restore the date of commencement of probation of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers as 23.01.1996 and 16.05.1994 and fix the seniority of the petitioners accordingly and in terms of ranking assigned by the APPSC with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO : 17340 of 2008 Between: N. Sarangam S/o Kommalu Now O/o Executive Engineer, SRSP Stage-II, Division No.II Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary I&CAD Department Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief (Admnwing) I& CAD Departmetn, Errammanzil, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to O.A. o 70/2007 dated 31-07-2008 by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrtive Tribunal and set aside the same as unjust and contrary to law including the order passed in OA No. 557/2007 and batch dated 28-07-2008 by the Hon'ble Tribunal and also set a side the Memo No. 8477/Ser1.2/2006-9 dated 20-01-2007 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to restore the date of commencement of probation of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers as 23-01-1996 and 16-05-1994 and fix the seniority of the petitioners accordingly and in terms of ranking assigned by the APPSC with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO : 16897 of 2008 Between: A.K.Chaturvedi S/o. D.N. Chaturvedi O/o. Executive Engineer, Division No.II, GVCI, SRSP, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, I & CAD Department Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022. 2 The Engineer - in- Chief (Admn. wing ), I&CAD Department, Errammanzil, Hyderabad. 3 S.Sreenivasa Naik, O/o. HLC (IOC) Division, Ananthapur. 4 S.Viswanatham O/o. HNSS Division-6, Ananthapur. 5 B.Sreenivas Naik, O/o. Engineer-in-Chief, P&M Cell, Errammanzil, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of ' Writ of Certiorari' calling for the records relating to O.A.NO. 7070/2007 dated 28-07-2008 by the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal nad set aside the same as unjust and contrary to law and also set asdie the Memo.No.8477/Ser.1.2/2006-9, dated 20-01-2007 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondent in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer as 15-06-1984 and fix the seniority of the petitioner accordingly and in terms of ranking assigned by the APPSC with all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO : 16807 of 2008 Between: 1 R. Venkata Ramudu S/o R. Krishna Murthy Presently Working as Deputy Executive Engineer. O/o The Executive Engineer SRBC Division No.3 OWK, Kurnool. 2 R. Sunil Naik S/o G. Rammohan naik O/o Executive Engineer, SRBC, Q.C. & Division No.2 Nandyal, Kurnool Distrit presently working as Deputy Executive Engineer, O/o Executive Engineer, SRBC, quality Control and Inspection Division No.3, OWK @ Panyam, ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of A.P., rep by its Secretary to Government Irrigaiton and CAD Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Engineer-in-Chief (Admn,. Wing) Irrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 3 B. Sunder, Zone-VI O/o Deputy Executive Engineer, Huzurnagar, Sub. Division, Suryapet, (HQ), IB Division, nalgonda. 4 G. Balaji Zone-VI, O/o Executive Engineer, AMRP., Division No. 5, G.V. Gudem, Nalgonda. 5 B. ramulu Zone-IV O/o the Executive Engineer,' Division No.1, AMRP Gurrampod, Nalgoda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more inthe nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relatingto mpugned Judgment of the Hon'ble A.P., Administrative Tribunal dated 28-7-2008 in O.A. No. 562 of 2007 and quash the same and further declare the impugned Governmet Memo No. 8477/Ser.1.2/2006-9 dated 20-1-2007 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioenrs for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers and otehr higher categories basing onthe ranking assigned in teh APPSC and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. WRIT PETITION NO : 23101 of 2008 Between: K. Srinivasulu, s/o. K. Chennaiah, Executive Engineer, SRBC, Quality Control and Inspection, Nandyal, Kurnool District, presently working Dy. Executive Engineer, M.I. Works Sub-Division, Adhoni, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. Rep by its Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.Wing) Irrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 6-8-2007 in OA No. 559 of 2007 and the impugned Memo No. 27931/Ser.I(1)/2005-1 dated 21-9-2008 and the consequential Proceedings No. Rc./E.N.C./D1/63420/95 dated 16-5-2006 and quash the same by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, bad and arbitrry and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher categories by taking into account his initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. WRIT PETITION NO : 23101 of 2008 Between: K. Srinivasulu, s/o. K. Chennaiah, Executive Engineer, SRBC, Quality Control and Inspection, Nandyal, Kurnool District, presently working Dy. Executive Engineer, M.I. Works Sub-Division, Adhoni, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. Rep by its Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.Wing) Irrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 6-8-2007 in OA No. 559 of 2007 and the impugned Memo No. 27931/Ser.I(1)/2005-1 dated 21-9-2008 and the consequential Proceedings No. Rc./E.N.C./D1/63420/95 dated 16-5-2006 and quash the same by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, bad and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher categories by taking into account his initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed,J) 1. These batch of writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the common judgment dated 28.7.2008 passed in O.A.No.562 of 2007 and batch on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the impugned Government Memo No.8477/Ser.1.2/2006-9, dated 20.1.2007 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and other higher categories basing on the ranking assigned in APPSC. 2. These batch of writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as the cause in all these writ petitions is same. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are direct recruitees as Assistant Executive Engineers, on selection by the A.P.Public Service Commission in the year 1989 and 1990. Subsequently, they were promoted as Incharge Deputy Executive Engineers. It is stated that the petitioners were not indicated that they need to pass the departmental test in their appointment orders and that the department commenced their probation w.e.f. 3.5.89 and 7.2.1990 etc. It is submitted that the petitioners have passed their departmental test on 12.1.1993, 20.1.1997 etc. The Government issued a memo on 20.1.2007 altering the date of commencement of probation of the petitioners by invoking Rule 16(h) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 read with Rule 6 of A.P. Departmental Test Rules, 1965. In the said memo the date of commencement of probation of the petitioners was altered by two years anterior to the date of passing their departmental test. As per Rule 8 of A.P. Engineering Service Rules, every person appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Executive Engineer shall within the period of probation pass the Accounts Test for PWD Officers and Subordinates. According to Rule 6 of A.P. Engineering Service Rules, the period of probation will be two years within continuous period of three years. Under note to Rule 8(c) of A.P. Engineering Service Rules any Assistant Executive Engineer on probation shall not be discharged for failure to pass the test within the period of his probation, but his probation shall be extended and he will not earn increments till he passes the test. According to A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, a probationer has to pass the departmental test during the period of probation. According to Rule 16(f)(i), a person who did not pass the departmental test during the period of probation shall be discharged from service unless the period of probation is extended under Rule 17(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and the appointing authority may extend the period of probation of a probationer who fails to pass the departmental test during the period of probation. In other words, the said power is discretionary. It is stated that u/s 17(b), appointing authority is having powers to extend the period of probation not exceeding one year. It is further stated that if a person fails to pass the departmental test even during the extended period of probation, he or she shall be discharged from service under Rule 16(f)(i) and there is no power to extend the probation thereafter. However, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 31 of A.P.State and Subordinate Rules can relax the rules relating to period of probation and can extend the period of probation in relaxation of rules. Where the period of probation was extended by the Government in relaxation of rules, his date of commencement of probation will be altered by invoking Rule 16(h) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. It is averred that Rule 16(h) is applicable only when the period of probation is extended by the Government in relaxation of rules, but the said rule is not applicable to Assistant Executive Engineers. As per note to Rule 8 of A.P. Engineering Service Rules, the period of probation of the Assistant Executive Engineers shall stand extended automatically till they pass the test. It is emphatically stated that the question of relaxation of rule by the Government does not arise in so far as Assistant Executive Engineers are concerned. It is further stated that the Assistant Executive Engineers are not liable to be discharged from service on failure to pass the departmental test and when there is no order of Government relaxing the rule extending the period of probation, the question of applying Rule 16(h) does not arise. Hence, the impugned memo of the Government is illegal, bad and arbitrary. In those circumstances, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.562 of 2007, which was dismissed on 6.8.2007 on the ground that the provisional seniority list was issued and as such the petitioners can raise their objections to the provisional seniority list. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed W.P.No.18529 of 2007, whereby and where under this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded for fresh disposal on merits. The main contention of the petitioners in the Tribunal was that Rule 16(h) is applicable only when the Government exercises its powers under rule 31 relaxing the Rule and that in so far as Assistant Executive Engineers in Irrigation Department are concerned, there is no necessity to relax the rule for continuing them in service without discharging as the special rules permits the Assistant Executive engineers to continue in service without discharge. The Tribunal held that the Special Rules do not prescribe the specific period for extension of probation. It was further contended that according to Special Rules the probation stands extended automatically till he passes the departmental test. The Tribunal held that note to rule 8 of the Special Rules has to be read in conjunction with Rule 17(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. It was further contended before the Tribunal that the powers vested with the appointing authority under rule 17(b) are discretionary and that the appointing authority may discharge the probationer for not passing the departmental test without extending the period of probation and that the power under Rule 17 (b) is only for a limited extension of one year and beyond that the appointing authority has no jurisdiction and that note under Rule 8 is clear that the probation shall be extended till passing of the test, and the only condition is that the increment will be stopped during the said period. The Tribunal held that there is no provision for extending the period of probation beyond one year except by way of relaxation of power under Rule 31. Ultimately, the Tribunal has come to the following conclusions: (1) All the applicants were appointed by way of direct recruitment and therefore, they commence their probation from the date of joining upon first appointment initially by the mandate of Rule 6 of the Special Rules. (2) Rule 16(h) of the General Rules overrides the provisions of the Special Rules. Further the note under rule 8 of the Special Rules cannot be read in isolation in the absence of any provision with regard to the declaration of probation in the Special Rules. (3) The said note under rule 8 of the special Rules has to be read in consonance with the rules pertaining to the declaration of probation in the General Rules. (4) The Note under Rule 8 cannot take away the effect of the rule itself and further it has to yield the mandatory overriding provisions of rule 16(h) of the General Rules. (5) There is no need for the appointment order to specially require the appointees to pass the tests in accordance with the special and general rules. The moment an appointment is made