Judgment WANCHOO, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Mysore High court and arises in the following circumstances. The respondents who are working as Senior Health Inspectors in the State of Mysore filed a writ petition in the High court praying that a notification dated 2/04/1963 by which a seniority list of sanitary Sub-Inspectors and Sanitary Inspectors serving in the department of Public Health was issued calling for objections should be quashed. The respondents were originally serving in the State of Bombay but on reorganisation of Stales from 1/11/1956 they were allotted to the State of Mysore. It appears that after november. 1956 a provisional seniority list of Sanitray Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors was published in 1958 by the Director of Public health. By that notification objections were called for to the seniority list on grounds connected with the establishment of equivalence of posts or other matters relating to Slates reorganisation. This seniority list, though it related to the entire State, was, however, prepared district wise as till then the cadre of these officials was district-wise and rot State-wise. It is said that in pursuance of this notification of February 1958 objections were filed but nothing further happened thereafter. It appears that when the seniority list was published in February, 1958 some officials objected that it should be on a state-wise basis and not on a district-wise basis. But this objection was turned down in March, 1958. It is said that this seniority list of 1958 continued in operation till February, 1962 even though it was not finalised as required under the States Reorganisation act, No. 39 of 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the act), and promotions used to be made district-wise in accordance therewith. ( 2 ) IN October, 1961, however, it is said that government decided to change the district-wise system for these officials prevalent till then. and substitute therefor a Mate-wise system. This change was made after the government decided to take out class III posts from the purview of the Public Service Commission. Thereafter a government Order was issued in January, 1962 by which Class III posts were divided into three cadres, namely, (i) state-wise, (ii) division wise, and (iii) district-wise and different methods of recruitment through what wire called state-level recruitment committees and divisional-level recruitment committee were to prevail for recruitment of state-wise and division-wise pasts. Thereafter a government Order was issued in January, 1962 by which Class III posts were divided into three cadres, namely, (i) state-wise, (ii) division wise, and (iii) district-wise and different methods of recruitment through what wire called state-level recruitment committees and divisional-level recruitment committee were to prevail for recruitment of state-wise and division-wise pasts. The order also said that all class iv posts would normally be treated as district-wise. The annexure to the order shows that Senior and Junior Health Inspectors of the public Health Department were put in the cadre of State-wise system and their recruitment was to be made by State-level recruitment committees. ( 3 ) AFTER this decision the Director of Public Health was informed by government that his proposal to prepare seniority lists of Senior and junior Health Inspectors and others on State-wise basis instead of region wise basis was approved. Thereafter the Director took steps to prepare a State-wise seniority list of all Senior and Junior Health Inspectors in spite of the protest of the respondents. Eventually the old provisional seniority list of 1958 relating to these officials which had been prepared on district-wise basis was apparently scrapped and in its place a new seniority list was published on 2/04/1963. This was on State-wise basis and necessary objections were invited to this list in the context of the Act before its finalisation as required thereunder. Then, followed the writ petition out of which the present appeal has arisen, praying for quashing the new provisional seniority list prepared on States wise system. ( 4 ) THE principal ground taken in support of the plea that the list should be quashed was that by making the list State-wise persons like the respondents who had been allotted to the State of Mysore after the reorganisation of States went down heavily in seniority with the result that their chances of promotion were affected. It: was urged that the Slate government had no power to scrap the old seniority list and substitute the prevent provisional seniority list in its place. Besides, it was also urged that this had been done with mala fide intention in order to favour the officials of the old Mysore State and cause damage to official of the former Bombay State who were allotted to the new State of Mysore. ( 5 ) THE petition was opposed on behalf of the State government. Besides, it was also urged that this had been done with mala fide intention in order to favour the officials of the old Mysore State and cause damage to official of the former Bombay State who were allotted to the new State of Mysore. ( 5 ) THE petition was opposed on behalf of the State government. It is strange that the State government did not file any affidavit in reply. We must say that in a case of this kind we should have expected the Stale government to file a proper affidavit in reply that would show how, when and why the district-wise system was given up in favour of the state-wise system with reference to these officials. It seems to us that the main reason why the petition succeeded in the present case was that there was no proper explanation on behalf of the State to show how exactly the system was changed from district wise to state-wise. ( 6 ) THE High court allowed the petition mainly on the ground that there was nothing to show why the State government had changed the district-wise system for a state-wife system. The High court seems to have been of the view that all that the orders of government from 29/01/1962 onwards show is that future recruitment was to be on a state-wise system. The High court therefore thought that that was no reason for scraping the provisional seniority list which had been made as far back as 1958, for in the words of the high court, "what the government did by this notification was merely to constitute a separate machinery for selection to class III posts. The charge in the mode of selection or of the machinery of selection has nothing to do with the integration of services and determination of inter-state seniority of officers belonging to a particular category. " In this view of the matter, the High court quashed the list published along with the notification dared 2/04/1963. ( 7 ) THE main contention on behalf of the appellant before us is that the High court misunderstood the effect of orders passed by government from time to time from 29/01/1962 onwards. " In this view of the matter, the High court quashed the list published along with the notification dared 2/04/1963. ( 7 ) THE main contention on behalf of the appellant before us is that the High court misunderstood the effect of orders passed by government from time to time from 29/01/1962 onwards. It is said that these orders of government show that the government created state wise cadres of Junior and Senior Health Inspectors land in consequence of the creation of State wise cadres it was necessary to scrap the earlier provisional seniority list which had been prepared on a District wise basis and to substitute list prepared on state wise basis. It is said that the government decided to change the system in the interest of efficiency after it had decided in October 1961 to take out practically all class III posts from the purview of the public service commission in older to relieve the commission of a heavy work load which it was unnecessary for the commission to discharge. Having decided to take out class ill hosts from the purview of the Commission, government had to decide what system should be evolved for various class III posts and what cadres should be constituted in that behalf. The government decided to have three types of cadres, namely, (i) state wise. (ii) division wise, and (iii) district wise, and divided all the class III services amongst these three types of cadres and placed the Junior and Senior Health Inspectors on state wise cadre. In consequence, the government directed the Director of Public Health to prepare a fresh state wise seniority list for such officials. ( 8 ) THIS is brief is the argument on behalf of the appellant before us. It seems to us that if this argument supported by all the necessary facts had been put before the High court by an affidavit on behalf of the appellant, the High court would probably not have come to the conclusion that the old list of 1958 was scrapped for no relevant reason. It seems to us that if this argument supported by all the necessary facts had been put before the High court by an affidavit on behalf of the appellant, the High court would probably not have come to the conclusion that the old list of 1958 was scrapped for no relevant reason. It is however urged on behalf of the respondents that the High court was right in holding on a persual of various government Orders that all that the government intended was to constitute a separate state wise machinery for selection of Class III posts for futures recruitment and that there was no decision of government to create a state wise cadre for Junior and Senior Health inspectors including all those who were in service before 1/11/1956. It is urged that no order of government has been produced which expressly says so in terms. It may he accepted that there is no order of Government which expressly says in terms that Junior and Senior Health Inspectors recruited upto date whether before or after 1/11/1956 would be put in one state wise cadre. But when one reads various orders passed by government from 29/01/1962 onwards one must come to the conclusion that that was what the government intended after it had decided to take away class III posts from the purview of the public service commission. We have already indicated that the order taking away class iii posts from the purview of the public service commission was passed the October 1961. Thereafter the government had to provide for recruitment of class III posts and it began to do so by the order, of 29/01/1962. It is remarkable that in that order. government created three types of cadres namely, (i) state wise, (ii) division wise, and (iii) district wise. The actual words of the orders are that government are accordingly pleased to approve the classification of these posts into state wise, division wise and district wise cadres as in the annexure. Obviously therefore three types of cadres for class III posts in the State service were created by the order of 29/01/1962. The Annx. shows that so far as Junior and senior Health Inspectors were concerned they were put in state wise cadre. Obviously therefore three types of cadres for class III posts in the State service were created by the order of 29/01/1962. The Annx. shows that so far as Junior and senior Health Inspectors were concerned they were put in state wise cadre. This was followed by a lever from government in February 1962 to the Director of Public Health asking him to prepare the seniority list of Junior and Senior Health Inspectors on state wise basis. These two orders read together clearly show that the intention of government was to create a state wise cadre of Junior and Senior Health Inspectors arid further this cadre was to consist of all such officials upto date, whether recruited before or after 1/11/1956. We cannot agree with the High court that these orders merely show that only a recruitment agency was being created in place of the public service commission. Besides, it is difficult to understand how two different types of cadres could continue in the same service one on district wise basis upto 29/01/1962 when the order in question was passed and the other do state wise basis from 29/01/1962. In any case the governments letter of February 1962 to the Director of Public Health makes it quite clear that Junior and Senior Health Inspectors were to be put on the state wise cadre and that this was to apply to all such Inspectors who were in the service on that date, whether recruited before or after 1/11/1956. We cannot therefore agree with the High court that these orders show that merely a recruitment agency for the future was being created and no more. There is no doubt that the Government had created a state wise cadre of Junior and Senior health Inspectors and ordered the Director of Public Health to prepare a seniority list in accordance with the state wise cadre with respect to all such employees whether recruited before or after 1/11/1956. It was because of this that the provisional seniority list prepared in 1958 on district wise basis had to be trapped and a new provisional list of such officials in service upto 1/11/1956, had to be prepared on a state wise basis. It was because of this that the provisional seniority list prepared in 1958 on district wise basis had to be trapped and a new provisional list of such officials in service upto 1/11/1956, had to be prepared on a state wise basis. We would have agreed with the High court if we had come to the conclusion that government orders showed that only future recruitment was to be done in a particular manner; but we are satisfied that government orders from 29/01/1962 onwards show that a state wise cadre of Junior and Senior Health Inspector was being created and it was in that context that the old list of 1958 had to be scrapped as it was based on a district wise system. ( 9 ) IT is however urged on behalf of the respondents that it was not open to government to take into account factors subsequent to government 1, 1956 in the matter of fixing seniority as on that date. On the face of the argument looks attractive. But if one goes deeper into the matter it is clear that what the government did after the state wise cadre had been created in 1962 which was necessary even for purposes of fixing seniority of these who had been recruited before 1956 in view of the new cadre thus created. This will be clear from a simple example. Suppose that the district wise seniority list of 1958 had been finalized before 1962. It is not disputed that that would not have prevented government from changing the system of district wise basis and substituting in its place state wise system. If that had been done the government was bound to re-fix seniority on a state wise basis, if the government could re-fix authority on state wise cadre even after the provisional seniority list 1958 had been finalized, we do not understand why the government could not re-fix seniority on a state wise basis simply he provisional list of 1958 had not been finalized. It is not as if the question whether the cadre should be fixed on slate wise or district wise basis arise for the first time in 1962; on the respondents own showing the matter was raised even when the list of 1958 was being prepared but at that time the government stuck to the district wise system. It is not as if the question whether the cadre should be fixed on slate wise or district wise basis arise for the first time in 1962; on the respondents own showing the matter was raised even when the list of 1958 was being prepared but at that time the government stuck to the district wise system. Later however it seems that the state wise system was throughout to be more efficient and so the district wise system was given up. In the circumstances there was nothing improper in the government scrapping the provisional list of 1958 and preparing a new list of all the employees based on state wise system introduced in 1962. We are therefore of opinion that the high court is not right in the view it has taken that government had no reason to change the seniority list of 1958. ( 10 ) IT is then urged on behalf of the respondents that by changing the system from district-wise to state wise the respondents have been very hard hit and have become very junior. It appears from the figures supplied by the respondents that there were 665 Junior Health inspectors in the old State of Mysore on 1/11/1956 while only 48 Junior Health Inspectors were allotted to the new State of mysore after the Act. So long as the district-wise system continued these 48 persons would naturally have better chances of promotion in their districts but when the cadre was made state-wise, them 48 were likely to go down in the seniority as the list of 1963 actually shows. It is urged that this has affected their chances of promotion which were protected under the proviso to S. 115 (7) of the Act, which lays down that the conditions of service applicable immeditely before the appointed day to the case of any person allotted to the new State shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the central government. It is said on behalf of the respondents that as their chance of promotion have been affected their conditions of service have been changed to their disadvantage. We see no force in. this argument because chances of promotion are not conditions of service. It is enough in this connection to refer to the State of orissa v. Durga Charan Dass (A. I. R. 1966 SC 1547 ). We see no force in. this argument because chances of promotion are not conditions of service. It is enough in this connection to refer to the State of orissa v. Durga Charan Dass (A. I. R. 1966 SC 1547 ). ( 11 ) LASTLY, it is urged on behalf of the respondents that the action of the government was malafide. Now there is no doubt that if 41. Government changed the district wise system into state wise with the sole object of favouring the old Mysore employees and doing damages to the employees who had come from Bombay or other States on reorganisation of States the action of government would be mala fide and would be liable to be set aside. ( 12 ) BUT the mere fact that a change in the system from district wise to state wise has affected chances of promotion of the respondents or others like them is no ground for holding that the governments section was mala fide. All that the respondents said in their petition with respect to mala fide was just this, "that the position bad been affected. " But there was no definite allegation that this was done by any person an authority is order solely to cause harm to the respondents. In the absence of any such definite allegation we cannot hold that the action of government in changing the district wise system and replacing it by the State wise system on the ground that the latter was presumably more conducive to efficiency was mala fide. It may be noted that there is no discussion of mala fide at all in the judgment of the High court and that shows that if point was not seriously pressed there. ( 13 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances however we pass no order as to costs. .