Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 2183 of 1984. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.1984 of the Kerala High Court in W. P. No. 131 of 1982. M. K. Ramamurthi	 V. J. Francis and N. M. Popli for the Appellants. G. D. Gupta	 Ms. Halida Khatun	 Subba Rao	 R. N. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.1984 of the Kerala High Court in W. P. No. 131 of 1982. Poddar	 Ms. Subhadra	 Ms. Alka	 B. B. Tawaklcy and Mrs. Urmila Kapur for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court Was delivered by DESAI	 J. Chagrined by the failure of the attempt to pressurise junior engineers to boycott the examination and further irritated by the holding of the examination the appellants have knocked at the 883 doors of this Court	 putting forth utterly unsustainable contentions. Appellants are junior engineers in the Telegraph Wing of the Post & Telegraph Department. The next avenue of promotion for a Junior Engineer is the post of Assistant Engineer. Promotions were governed by Telegraphic Engineering Service (Class Il) Recruitment Rules	 1966 ( '1966 Rules ' for short ). By these rules Telegraphic Engineering Service ( Class Il ) was formed. The Rules were to apply to posts as specified in Clause (I) of the Schedule which specified the post of Assistant Engineer and other equivalent posts having allied designations. Clause (I) in Appendix I to the 1966 Rules provides that recruitment to the service shall be entirely by promotion on the basis of selection of Junior Engineers through a qualifying departmental examination. An approved list shall he ' prepared by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee	 by selection from amongst the officials who qualifying the departmental examination. Sub Clause (4) provided that the departmental qualifying examination shall be open to Junior Engineers who fulfill	 amongst others	 the condition specified therein. It reads as under: "Those recruited and absorbed in that grade against the vacancies of a year	 ordinarily	 not less than five years prior to the year of announcement of the said examination. These rules were in force till superseded by Telegraphic Engineering Service (Group Posts) Recruitment Rules	 1981 ( '1981 Rules ' for short) enacted in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution with effect from May 7	 1981. The controversy centers round the Note appended to sub clause (4 of Appendix I of 1981 Rules which reads as under: "40 There shall be normally one examination	 consisting of two parts called Qualifying cum Competitive Examination for promotion to the Service and shall be held at least once in a calendar year in the manner and in accordance with the syllabus prescribed in Appendix Ill to these rules. Note: After the commencement of these rules	 the first two examinations shall only be competitive for which the eligibility shall be restricted to only those officers who have 884 already qualified in the Departmental Qualifying Examination held before the commencement of these rules. " Appellants were recruited as Junior Engineers in the year 1973. ln other words	 they belong to 1973 batch. Their grievance is that they have completed five years of service which conferred on them eligibility to appear at an examination which was to be held under 1966 Rules. 1966 Rules contemplated only one examination styled as Qualifying Departmental Examination. 1981 Rules which superseded 1966 Rules provide for one examination to be held in two parts namely Qualifying Examination and Competitive Examination. Before one is permitted to take a Competitive Examination he has to clear Qualifying Examination. In short	 if one has not qualified at the Qualifying Examination he can not take the Competitive Examination. The appellants ' grievance is that from 1973 to 1982 or to be specific after 1978 when they became eligible to take Qualifying Examination no Qualifying Examination was held till May 7	 1981 when 1966 Rules were superseded by 1981 Rules which introduced the concept of Competitive Examination which could alone be taken after in qualifying the Qualifying Examination and for a period of two years as per the Note appended to clause (4) Qualifying Examination was not to be held. The contention is that this is an invidious manner of denying them the opportunity to take the examination and thereby deny them equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion. Appellants accordingly filed O.P. No. 5714/81 under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Kerala impugning the constitutionality of the Note appended to clause (4) of Appendix I to 1981 Rule. A learned Single Judge of the High Court	 before whom the petition came up for hearing	 held that the policy reflected in the Note appended to clause (4) of Appendix I to 1981 Rules is irrational as it has no reasonable connection with the needs of the office or the object sought to be attained. A direction was given that the Note shall be applied to the appellants. By the judgment rendered on March 9	 1982	 the learned Judge gave a further direction that the department can either hold the over due qualifying examination of 1980 or it can hold the qualifying cum competitive examination but it must be done forthwith so that the appellant who were petitioners before the High Court may not be altogether 885 excluded from the examination or examinations to be held. The respondents to the writ petition	 the Union of India and others filed Writ Appeal No. 131 of 1982 which came up before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench disagreed with the learned Single Judge observing that the Note to Rule 4 is not ultra vires but this was subjects to the further directions given by the Division Bench. Taking note of the fact that in the meantime	 a competitive examination was conducted	 a direction was given that the result be published and the candidates who are declared successful in the examination should be appointed to 33 1/3% of the vacancies which arose between May 7	 1981 and May 7	 19 82.A further direction was given that the second competitive examination contemplated in note to clause (4) must be conducted after a qualifying examination as envisaged in 1966 and/or 1981 Rules is conducted within a period of six months from the date of the judgment and all those examinees found declared successful at the qualifying examination be permitted to take the competitive examination which must be held within six months from the date of the result of the earlier examination. A direction was given that the candidates declared successful at the competitive examination be appointed to 33 1/3% quota of posts in the vacancies that arose between May 7	 1982 and May 7	 1983. There was some further directions which are hardly material for the present purpose. The writ appeal was disposed of in these terms. Original petitioners aggrieved by the decision of Division Bench have filed this appeal by special leave. By sheer passage of time	 this appeal and even the main petition have become infructuous. Even in service jurisprudence the clock of history	 sometimes	 cannot be put back and even if it is found that the respondents have committed an error in implementing the statutory rules no relief can be granted. This is one such case. Appellants are Junior Engineers of the 1973 batch belonging to the service styled as Telegraphic Engineering Service (Class II) re designated as Telegraphic Engineering Service (Group Posts). Appellants as Junior Engineers can look forward to become Assistant Engineers by promotion. Indisputably	 the recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer in the service is by promotion from 886 the cadre of Junior Engineers. Under the 1966 Rules	 Junior Engineers would become eligible for promotion on qualifying at a qualifying examination. The eligibility criterion for taking the examination was service of five years. Appellants who are Junior Engineers of 1973 batch became eligible for taking the examination that may be held in 1978 and onwards. Once in November	 1980 and another in January	 1981	 programme of holding qualifying examination	 where 1973 recruits could have appeared	 was announced but subsequently cancelled and on May 7	 1981	 1966 Rules were superseded by 1981 Rules. 1981 Rules envisaged a qualifying cum competitive examination. Eligibility criterion for taking competitive examination was successful clearance of qualifying examination. Therefore	 unless a qualifying examination is held one would have no chance to take competitive examination. For 1973 recruits no qualifying examination is held. In 1981 Rules by a note appended to clause (4) of Appendix 1	 it was provided that the next two examinations under 1981 Rules would only be competitive examination. The sum total of these developments would certainly come in the way of appeallants who are of 1973 batch from taking competitive examination and unless they qualify at that examination they would not be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. In 1982 a competitive examination was held. Junior Engineers who were recruited prior to 1973 and who had qualified at the qualifying examination held in August 1980 could appear at this competitive examination. As Junior Engineers of 1973 and sub" sequent batches were not admitted to qualifying examination held in 1982 and as no qualifying examination was held in November 1980 and January 1981 and as two examinations under the 1981 Rules were only to be competitive examination	 certainly they have been denied an opportunity to take the examination. Appellants who similarly situated persons tried extra constitutional methods to pressurise the powers that be	 from holding the qualifying examination and subsequently from declaring its results. This Court had to interpose to put down such pressure tactics by a mandatory direction given at an interim stage that the results of the examination already held must be declared. We are informed that the results have been declared. 887 Mrs. Urmila Kapoor	 learned counsel represented one such successful candidate. Even though the results are declared	 the follow up action of promotion and appointment has not been taken. We propose to give appropriate directions in this matter. In the backdrop of these facts	 can it be said that the appelIants have been victimised or subjected to discriminatory treatment or have been denied equality of opportunity in the matter of pro motion. Appellants do not question the legality of rules which prescribe a qualifying cum competitive examination for becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Their grievance is that note 4 appended to clause I introduces discrimination In that Junior Engineers of 1972 and prior batches will alone be able	 if they had cleared the qualifying examination	 to take the competitive examination which would be held under 1981 Rules and as only the competitive examination was to be held	 Junior Engineers of 1973 and subsequent batches	 even if they have put in five years of qualifying service	 would be denied an opportunity to i take the examination. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held the note to be ultra vires. We find it difficult to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge in this behalf. However the Division Bench has clearly opined that the note is not ultra vires. Mr. Ramamurthy	 learned counsel for the appellants contended that the note inheres the pernicious tendency of denying equality of opportunity in the matter of taking examination because it permits the department to provide a bottleneck coming in the way of Junior Engineers of the 1973 batch from taking the competitive examination by not holding the qualifying examination. We see nothing wrong in the policy disclosed by the note. lt was pointed out that by 1982 nearly 7	 000 Junior Engineers had become eligible for taking competitive examination. There was some dispute about the figure but we are prepared to accept the figure as given by Mr. Ramamurthy	 learned counsel that 4	 000 Junior Engineers of pre ` 1973 batch were qualified for taking competitive examination. Mr. Ramamurthy contended that if the eligibility criterion is five years of service DO artificial road block could be created so as to come in the way of such qualified Junior Engineers from taking the examination. As an additional string to the bow	 it was submitted that if the purpose of holding a competitive examination is to select best all eligible persons must be permitted to take the examination and ll 888 no artificial barrier need to be created. It was submitted that not holding of the qualifying examination creates such an impermissible road block in the way of Junior Engineers of 1973 and subsequent batches from taking competitive examination. If by 1982	 more than 4	 000 Junior Engineers of pre 1973 batch had become eligible to take the examination and if the accumulated number of vacancies was around 300	 it is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Ramamurthy that everyone who has just put in five years of service must be permitted to take the examination. It is a known principle of service jurisprudence that even though mini mum eligibility criterion is fixed enabling one to take the examination yet the examination can be confined on a rational basis to recruits upto a certain number of years. That constitutes recognition of long experience and not permitting some irate junior to score a march. If by 1982	 nearly 4	 000 Junior Engineers of pre 1973 batches had become eligible for taking competitive examination	 the department would be perfectly justified in keeping the examination open only to persons who have put in such long service and leaving others to wait for the next examination. If for taking examination this aspect introduces classification	 it is based on rational and intelligible differentia which has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. By the note	 for a period of two years only pre 1973 Junior Engineers who had cleared qualifying examination were given a chance to take competitive examination. If this introduces a classification	 it is valid. It caters to a well known situation in service jurisprudence that there must be some ratio of candidates to vacancies. And it is based on long experience as a rational basis for classification. Viewed from this angle	 we find nothing in the policy underlying the note to rule (4) as being either discriminatory or arbitrary or denying equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion. It had the desired effect of not having a glutt of Junior Engineers taking examination compared to fewer number of vacancies. Length and experience were given recognition by the note The promotion can be thus by stages exposing the promotional avenue gradually to persons having longer experience. This seems to be the policy underlying the note and we see nothing improper or unconstitutional in it. However the situation has materially changed. More than 4 years elapsed sine the note has appeared One examination is 889 a ready taken. Even Junior Engineers of 1973 batch have by now put in more than 12 years of service. Therefore while upholding the note and consequently rejection the appeal we propose to give the following directions to remove the irritants: (i) Successful candidates of 1982 competitive examination	 results of which have been declared pursuant to the directions of this Court	 must be given promotion as Assistant Engineer within a period of two months from today. (ii) The next qualifying examination permitting all those who are eligible under the rules to appear at it must be held latest by July 31	 1985 and the results be declared by September 30	 1985. (iii) The next competitive examination must be held by December 31	 1985 and the results by declared by February 28	 1986. (iv) Consequent promotions keeping in view the vacancies available must be given within a period of three months after the result is declared. This appeal is disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs M. L. A. Appeal dismissed.

Clause (1) in Appendix I to the Telegraphic Engineering Service (Class II) Recruitment Rules	 1966 (1966 Rules	 for short)	 provided that promotion of a Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer shall be entirely by promotion on the basis of selection of Junior Engineers through a qualifying departmental examination. Sub clause (1) provided that the departmental qualifying examination shall be open to Junior Engineers who were recruited and absorbed in that grade against the vacancies of a year	 ordinarily not less than five years prior to the year of announcement of the said examination. Sub clause (4) of Appendix I to the Telegraphic Engineering Service (Group Posts) Recruitment Rules	 1981 (1981 Rules	 for short) which superseded the 1966 Rules envisaged a qualifying cum competitive examination for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers. and the Note appended to sub cl. (4) provides that for a period of 2 years after the commencement of the 1981 Rules	 the first two examinations shall only be competitive for which the eligibility shall be restricted to only those officers who have already qualified in the Departmental Qualifying Examination held before the commencement of these Rules. " The appellants/Junior Engineers	 who were recruited in the year 1973	 challenged in the High Court the constitutionality of the Note appended lo clause (4) of Appendix I to 1981 Rule 5 on the ground that note 4 appended to clause I introduces discrimination in that Junior Engineers Or 1972 and prior batches will alone be able	 if they had cleared the qualifying examination	 to take the competitive examination which would be held under 1981 Rules and as only the competitive examination was to be held	 Junior Engineers of 1973 and subsequent batches	 even if they have put in five years of qualifying service	 would be denied an opportunity to take the examination	 and that this is an invidious manner of denying them the opportunity to take the examination and thereby deny them equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion. The learned Single Judge held that the Note to clause (4) of Appendix I to the 1981 Rules was ultra vires. On appeal by the respondent Union of India	 the Division Bench of the High Court held that the Note was not ultra Vires. 882 Dismissing the appeal by the appellants	 the Court	 ^ HELD: (I) By sheer passage of time	 this appeal and even the main petition have become infractions. Even in service jurisprudence the clock of history	 sometimes	 cannot be put back and even if it is found that the respondents have committed an error in implementing the statutory rules no relief can be granted. This is one such case. [885F G] (2) If by 1982	 nearly 4	000 Junior Engineers of pre 1973 batches had become eligible for taking competitive examination	 the department would be perfectly justified in keeping the examination open only to persons who have put in such long service and leaving others to wait for the next examination. If for taking examination this aspect introduces classification	 it is based on rational and intelligible differentia which has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. By the note	 for a period of two years only pre 1973 Junior Engineers who had cleared qualifying examination were given a chance to take competitive examination. If this introduces a classification	 it is valid. It caters to a well known situation in service jurisprudence that there must be some ratio of candidates to vacancies. And it is based on long experience as a rational basis for classification. Viewed from this angle	 there is nothing in the policy underlying the note to rule (43 as being either discriminatory or arbitrary or denying equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion. lt had the desired effect of not having glutt of Junior Engineers taking examination compared to fewer number of vacancies. Length and experience were given recognition by the note. The promotion can be thus by stages exposing the promotion; l avenue gradually to persons having longer experience. This seems to be the policy underlying the note and therefore there is nothing improper or unconstitutional in it. [888D G]