ORDER
1. The petitioners herein were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (for short the ‘LDC’) initially in the respondent-University in 1963, 1967 and 1968 respectively. At that point of time there was no Rule which required passing of Account Test for seeking any further promotion. In October, 1981 the respondent-University brought into force the Regulations prescribing passing of Accounts Test as a condition for further promotion to the posts of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Comptrollers/ Administrative Officers/Personal Assistant to Vice-Chancellor etc. The employees of the respondent-University’ men made several representations in this regard and on 27-12-1989 the respondent-University took a decision vide proceeding number 1769/SC 89 dated 27-12-1989 that those employees working as on 5-10-1981, were exempted from passing of Accounts Test for obtaining the first promotion. It was made clear that the said exemption was applicable only to obtain first promotion. Subsequently by proceedings No.52/SC/93 dated 15-1-1993 farther decision was taken that those employees, who had only five years of service left, before retiring at the age of 58 years were exempted from passing Accounts Test for securing promotion to the subsequent stages also. Thereafter vide proceedings No.l801/SC/97 dated 12-9-1997 a further decision was taken that all employees, who had crossed 45 years of age were exempted from passing the Accounts Test for seeking further promotion. At the same time the earlier proceedings dated 15-1-1993 stood cancelled. The contention of the petitioners is that all the three petitioners have crossed 45 years of age and therefore, are entitled to the exemption vide proceedings dated 12-9-1997. It is urged that on the basis of the proceedings dated 12-9-1997, nine other employees from the Grade of Superintendent were promoted
though out of them only two Superintendents had passed prescribed Accounts Test. Others were promoted on the basis that they had crossed 45 years and it was not necessary for them to pass the Accounts Test. The petitioners contend that on 25-7-1998 the Board of Management of the respondent-University lias resolved that all employees, who have less that one year service left were exempted from passing prescribed test for promotion to the next higher cadre. All the petitioners are now working as Superintendents and are entitled to the benefit of the various proceedings referred above. Inspite of this the respondent-University has refused to consider the petitioners’ claim for promotion to the posts of Assistant Registraron the ground that the petitioners have more than one year of service and they never appeared for the Accounts Test. The petitioners are challenging the refusal of the respondent-University to consider their claims, in view of the various proceedings referred above, for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, etc.
2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, I think that there is considerable merit in the petitioner’s case.
3. The petitioners have not passed the Accounts Test is not a disputed feet. The various proceedings referred above are also not matters of dispute. However, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that petitioners have been promoted to the post of Superintendent without their passing of the Accounts Test. As the exemption at that point of time was only in respect of one promotion, the petitioners cannot claim subsequent promotions as they have not passed the Accounts Test. It is also argued on behalf of the respondent that the exemption from passing the Test for subsequent stages of promotion does not apply to employees, who never appeared for the examination. It is contended that such exemption can be
claimed only by those employees, who appeared for the Accounts Test but could not pass the same. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent says that this has been clarified by the Government in Circular Memo No.l0922/Ser.C/98 dated 26-3-1998. In the said Memo it has been clarified to point No. 1 that exemption is applicable only to those employees, who appeared but could not pass the test. It is therefore, necessary to consider this argument. The original G.O. Ms. on the basis of which respondent-University has taken a decision to exempt the employees, who crossed 45 years of age from prescribed test, is G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 22-4-1997. This G.O. Ms. was approved for implementation by the respondent-University. The said G.O. Ms. which brought in force the Ad hoc Rule, is to following effect:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules or in the Special Rules or in ad hoc Rules, the Government employees, who have crossed 45 years of age shall be exempted from passing the Departmental Tests prescribed in the Special Rules/ad hoc rules for the purpose of promotion to the next higher category (i.e.) promotion/appointment by transfer to a post above the one held by him/her if they could not pass the same”
Now the clear reading of this G.O. shows that the ad hoc Rule applies for purposes of promotion to all Government employees, who had crossed 45 years of age and, they .were all exempted from passing the Departmental Tests. When an exemption has been granted from passing the departmental tests, it clearly means that there is no necessity to pass the test in view of the exemption. However, the clarification which has been given by a Circular Memo issued by the General Administration Department (GAD) of the Government of Andhrapradesh vide MemoNo.l0922/Ser.C/ 98 dated 26-3-1998 states that the exemption is applicable only to those employees, who appeared but could not pass the Test. Thus
by a Memo of a Department, the G.O. was sought to be explained and clarified. From the reading of the G.O. referred above, it is impossible to hold that (he exemption was meant only for those employees, who appeared but could not pass the test. If such a meaning \vas to be given to the above referred G.O., it would mean (hat some words have to be added to the G.O., Exemption from passing the Departmental Tests docs not by any stretch of imagination mean that the exemption applies to employees, who appeared but failed to pass the examination. The words “exemption from the test” means that there is no necessity to pass the test. Persons, who did not appear cannot pass the test and therefore, the exemption would apply to those, who did not pass the test. There is no rationale beliind the Clarification made by the Department that only those employees, who appeared but could not pass, are covered by the G.O. In my opinion the clarification is not binding. The clarification seeks to cliangc the G.O. and therefore, is beyond the powers of the Department. The plain reading of the G.O. does not in any way give raise to meaning proposed under the clarification. In my view the clarification has to be ignored by the respondent-University. The clarification issued by the Government docs not necessarily bind the respondent. Once the G.O. was accepted and implemented by the respondent, it was for the respondent to interpret the G.O. in proper terms. The clarification issued by the Government Department was not binding on the respondent. I am therefore, of the view that die petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 22-4-1997 though they did not appear for the Accounts Test.
4. The argument, that petitioners were promoted to posts of Superintendents though they did not pass the Accounts Test and are not entitled to promotion to next stage, is also without merit. The promotion to the post of Superintendent was on basis of proceedings dated 27-12-1989, which confined promotion only to one stage. The petitioners
are seeking benefit now of G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 22-4-1997. This is independent of proceedingsdated27-12-1989. TheG.O.does not exclude employees who had received benefit of proceedings of 1989. Hence the argument cannot be accepted.
5. It was contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University that Government was necessary party as the respondent was giving effect to the clarification issued by the Government. As pointed out by me, the clarification given by the Government cannot have binding force on the respondent once G.O. is adopted and implemented. It was for the respondent to give plain meaning and to interpret the G.O. in its true terms. The respondent need not have looked towards Government for interpretation and clarification.
6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent-University is directed to consider the petitioners’cases for promotion, irrespective of the fact that they did not appear and pass Accounts Test, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.185 adopted by respondent-University, in terms of above observations.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.