JUDGMENT S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner, the District Employment Officer, Ernakulam, was formerly the Assistant Employment Officer (Technical) in the Central Government Service and had been transferred to the Sub-Regional Exchange at Kozhikode, in the year 1952. With effect from November 1, 1956, the administrative control of Employment Exchange Offices was transferred to the concerned State Governments, and the officers of the Central Government in the Department, were taken over by such Governments. By this, the petitioner became an employee of the Kerala State Government. An integrated list, Ext. P1, was prepared by that Government, according to which, the petitioner occupied the third rank; he felt aggrieved that his rank was not fixed as the first in Ext. P1 and therefore he drew up a representation, Ext. P7, and, pursuant to the direction in Government notification dated May 2, 1958, Ext. P3, forwarded it to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala, for transmission to the Central Advisory Committee constituted under the provisions of S.115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Ext. P7 was returned by Government to the petitioner with an endorsement, Ext. P4, that it cannot be entertained, as the petitioner's seniority had been fixed by the Government of India. The petitioner then requested the Director of Employment Exchange, Trivandrum, to issue to him a copy of the memorandum which was said to have fixed his seniority, but received a reply, that there was no such memorandum. The petitioner's case is, that the Government of India had fixed his seniority only in the cadre of Assistant Employment Officers (Technical), and not his seniority in the integrated cadre of technical and non-technical officers of the Department as in Ext. P1, and he has produced a memo, Ext. P6 in support of this. His prayer in the present petition before me, which is under Art.226, is for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Kerala State Government, to forward his representation to the Central Advisory Committee. 2. In order to entitle the petitioner to a writ in these terms, the petitioner's learned counsel relied on the provisions of S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. In my opinion, they cannot avail the petitioner. 2. In order to entitle the petitioner to a writ in these terms, the petitioner's learned counsel relied on the provisions of S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. In my opinion, they cannot avail the petitioner. S.115(1) applies only to a person who immediately before November 1, 1956, was serving" in connection with the affairs of the Union under the administrative control of the Lieutenant Governor or Chief Commissioner" in any of the States specified therein; the petitioner was not so employed. S.115(2) applies to every person who was serving before November 1, 1956 "in connection with the affairs of an existing State, part of whose territories is transferred" under the Act to another State. The contention on behalf of the petitioner was, that he was serving in connection with the affairs of the Madras State, having been employed in Kozhikode at the time; but this was in his capacity as an employee of the Central Government, and not of the Madras State Government. Formerly, the Employment Exchanges constituted a Department of the Central Government, though in the then Part B States, they were administered by such States on an agency basis, that is, as agents of the Central Government. Even this, had nothing to do with the Madras State, which was not a part B State. The petitioner cannot, therefore, maintain the stand, that he was serving in connection with the affairs of the Madras State, part of whose territories was transferred so as to form the Kerala State. Sub-s.(3) and (4) of S.115 were not relied on, but clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s.(5) were pressed into service. Clause (a) deals with the "integration of the services among the new States" and clause (b) deals with "the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions" of S.115. The petitioner having been an; employee of the Central Government, is outside the provisions of both clauses (a) and (b). The petitioner is not entitled to any right by virtue of S.115. 3. In returning the representation to the petitioner, the Government mentioned a wrong ground, that his seniority had been fixed by the Central Government, instead of pointing out, that his case is not covered by S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act. The petitioner is not entitled to any right by virtue of S.115. 3. In returning the representation to the petitioner, the Government mentioned a wrong ground, that his seniority had been fixed by the Central Government, instead of pointing out, that his case is not covered by S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act. The learned Government Pleader explained, that the reference was really to the seniority fixed by the Central Government, when he was in the service of that Government; to this the reply was, that such seniority was fixed only as between the members of the technical branch of the Department to which the petitioner belonged, and not, as between the members of the technical and the non technical branches, as under Ext. P1. It is unnecessary for the purpose of the disposal of this petition to consider this question, and it is sufficient to hold, that the petitioner's case, not being covered by S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act, no mandamus could issue to compel the Government to forward his representation to the Central Advisory Committee. The learned counsel also urged that the Government had no power to decide on the applicability of S.115, but it seems to me, that it is open to the Government to examine the representation to see, whether it satisfies at least the prima facie requirements of S.115. In any case, I am not prepared to issue a writ of mandamus, in the circumstances stated above. This petition is therefore dismissed, but without costs.