JUDGMENT : M.U. Shah, J. These two petitions are filed by some Class III Government servants of the pre-reorganized State of Bombay, who have been allotted to the State of Gujarat on May 1, 1960, that is to say, on the "appointed day" as defined in Section 2 (a) of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 (Act No. 11 of 1960), which will hereafter be referred to as "the Act", and appointed in different capacities in the Co-operative Department of the Gujarat State. The petitioners are members of the non-Gazetted staff and they had, on May 10, 1965, reached the maximum of their time-scale in the Grade of Rs. 150-10-200 (old Grade) and Rs. 195-10-245 (revised Grade), drawing the salary of Rs. 245/- per month. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1968 is one Bhaskar Gupta who was at the time working as Senior Supervisor, Handlooms, having earned his last increment in the old grade and hence his pay was raised to Rs. 200/- (old grade), now revised to Rs. 245/-. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 231 of 1968 are one Chandrakant Chimanlal Bhavsar and seven others; petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were at the time working as Co-operative Officers, petitioner No. 4 as Additional Auditor, petitioners Nos. 6 and 7 as auditors and petitioner No. 8 as Head Clerk to the Registrar. All the petitioners have passed the prescribed departmental examination as required by the rules of the pre-reorganized State of Bombay prescribed for Class III employees. By the order No. MKM/29-E/ 444 of 1968 dated January 23, 1968, of the Co-operative Department, Gujarat State, which will hereafter be referred to as 'the impugned order', the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1968 and petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 231 of 1968 have been reduced to the next lower stage in the grade for the period from May 10, 1965 to September 13, 1967 for having not passed the G. D. C. & A. examination within the time-limit prescribed by Resolution of the Government of Gujarat, Health and Development Department, No. CDN-1001/20241-A, dated May 10, 1962, read with Rule No. 13(2) (ii) of the G. D. C. & A. Regulations contained in Government Resolution No. ISRO-1267/4600-B, dated September 14, 1967. The order further states that the petitioners shall earn their next increment immediately on the expiry of the stated period. The order further states that the petitioners shall earn their next increment immediately on the expiry of the stated period. The Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is order to calculate the amount required to be recovered from the petitioners as a result of the order and see that the whole amount is recovered from them in the twelve monthly instalments, the recovery of the first instalment, to be made from the month of January, i.e. from the salary payable in the month of February 1968. 2. The reduction to the next lower stage has been made by the impugned order which is common and the two petitions involve common questions relating to the construction of Government Resolutions, dated May 10, 1962, June 18, 1965, September 14, 1967 and March 16, 1968, which will hereafter be referred to as 'the impugned resolutions'. The petitioners have prayed for identical reliefs, viz. issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ declaring the said resolutions, as also the order reducing the petitioners to the next lower stage in the grade, etc. as, illegal, ultra vires, bad and inoperative in law and further that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of the two petitions, viz. The State of Gujarat and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State, be restrained from enforcing the same against the petitioners. The petitioners have further prayed for an appropriate writ or order against the said respondents to treat the petitioners as promoted to the next higher grade of post to which they were eligible in the ordinary course with effect from the date of seniority and that the petitioners be paid the difference of salary payable as per promoted post and further for a direction'' that the juniors promoted earlier to the petitioners be treated as lower in seniority in the promoted post than the petitioners. A declaration is sought that the G. D. C. & A. Examination is a .non-obligatory examination and a further declaration is sought that it is not a departmental examination and that the said respondents are not entitled to impose such an examination. It is not necessary to refer to the other reliefs prayed for. In both these petitions, Government servants who have been promoted as officers senior to the petitioners and who might well be affected if the impugned order and Government Resolutions are set aside, have been joined as co-respondents. It is not necessary to refer to the other reliefs prayed for. In both these petitions, Government servants who have been promoted as officers senior to the petitioners and who might well be affected if the impugned order and Government Resolutions are set aside, have been joined as co-respondents. Under the circumstances, the two petitions will be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The petitioners claim that their conditions of service were governed by the Bombay Civil Services Rules, referred to as "the B. C. S. Rules". According to them, the only limitations placed on their rights were those contained in Rule 45 of the B. C. S. Rules and Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. Rule 45 of the B. C. S. Rules provides that: "An increment shall be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from a Government servant by a competent authority, if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments." Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules provides for imposition of the stated penalties upon any member of subordinate service; Cl. (ii) thereof provides for withholding of increments or promotion including stoppage at an efficiency bar, and Cl. (iii) provides for reduction to a lower post on a fixed pay or a time-scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale. The penalties can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. We may here say that our attention is not invited to any rule in the B. C. S. Rules or in the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules which provides that a person who has reached the maximum of his grade can be reduced in his pay scale to a lower stage for not passing an imposed examination, which is a diploma examination or G. D. C. & A. Examination. 4. 4. The impugned order No. MKM/29-E/444 of 1968 of the Co-operative Department, Gujarat State, dated January 23, 1968, referred to at the outset and which has been produced as Annexure "D" to Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1968 and as Annexure "H" to Special Civil Application No. 231 of 1968, which is a common order, inter alia, directs that the petitioners be reduced to the next lower stage is the specified grade as shown in the relevant column of the statement annexed thereto. The whole order may be conveniently set out hereunder: No. MKM/29-E/ 444 of 1968 Co-operative Department, G. S. Ahmedabad, 23rd January, 1968, ORDER As per provisions contained in Rule No. 13 (2) (ii) of the G. D, C, & A. Regulations, the officers in the grade of Rupees 150-10-200 (old), Rs. 195-10-245 (revised) and Rs. 200-10-300 (old), Rs. 250-370 (revised) and above who does not pass the G. D. C. & A. Examination within the prescribed time-limit, i.e. on 10-5-1965, are not entitled for increments and if they have received the maximum of the grade, their pay shall be reduced to the next lower stage until they pass the examination. The first provision of the above regulation was already implemented while the other was not implemented until now as the matter was under correspondence with Government. It has now also been decided to implement the second provision of the regulation immediately. Under Government Resolution, Agricultural and Co-operation Department, No. SRO-1267/ 4600-11 dated 14-9-1967, Government has been pleased to amend the above two provisions with effect from 14-9-1967 and hence the second provision which was not implemented is required to be implemented for the period from 10-5-1965 to 14-9-1967. In view of what has been stated above, it is ordered that the pay of the persons mentioned in the accompanying statement should be reduced to the next lower stage in the grade shown in column No. 4 for the period shown in column No. 6 of the statement enclosed herewith. These persons shall earn their next increment immediately on expiry of the period in column No. 6 of the statement. The Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co. operative Societies, should calculate the amount required to be recovered and see that the whole amount is recovered from the persons mentioned in the statement in the twelve monthly instalments. These persons shall earn their next increment immediately on expiry of the period in column No. 6 of the statement. The Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co. operative Societies, should calculate the amount required to be recovered and see that the whole amount is recovered from the persons mentioned in the statement in the twelve monthly instalments. The Divisional Deputy Registrars, Co-operative Societies, are responsible for the recovery from the persons working in their Division. If, however, any person is transferred from their division subsequently, the Divisional Deputy Registrar in whose jurisdiction the person was working on the date of this order will be responsible for the recovery. The recovery of the first instalment should be made from the month of January, i.e. salary payable in the month of February 1968. Sd/ Illegible. For Registrar of Co-operative Societies, G. S., Ahmedabad." The statement referred to in the impugned order is an accompaniment to the said order and sets out in different columns the serial number of the Government servant ordered to be reverted, his name, his present designation, the pay-scale in which he was working as on May 10, 1965, his pay on May 10, 1965, and the period for which the amount is to be recovered. The statement includes the name of all the petitioners. 5. Mr. S. A. Shah appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 231 of 1968, and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1968 appearing in person, have contended that the "conditions of service" of the Government servants applicable immediately before "the appointed day" did not require them to pass the Government diploma in Cooperation and Accountancy Examination which will hereafter be referred to as the "G. D. C. A. Examination". They have contended that there was no statutory idle imposing the passing of a particular Examination in order to be eligible for promotion to a higher post. The contention, in substance, was that the impugned Government resolutions have varied the "conditions of service" to the disadvantage of the allocated Government servants and as such, the rules incorporated in those Government resolutions which require the Government servants to pass a particular examination as a qualifying test for the consideration of promotions was hit by the proviso to Section 81(6) of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. It was contended that the only limitations placed on the service of the Government servants were the one contained in Rule 45 of the B. C. S. Rules and Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules and that the Rules contained in the impugned Government resolutions were onerous and varied the "conditions of service" to the disadvantage of the Government servants. 6. Mr. G.N. Desai, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the two petitions, has contended that the petitions which are filed in February 1968 challenge the rules contained in the Government resolutions, Annexure "A" to the petitions, dated May 10, 1962, and as such, were barred by delay and laches'. It was contended that in the former Bombay State, there were rules enacted in 1939, which contained Rule 6-A which required that for eligibility to appointment of a District Co-operative Officer by promotion, the Government servant concerned must have passed all the papers of the G. D. C. A. Examination as stated in the Note to Rule 6-A of the 1939 Bombay Rules. Mr. Desai further contended that the impugned Government Resolutions contained recruitment rules and these rules were not "conditions of service" and as such, the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 81 of the Act was not attracted. 7. Mr. N.J. Mehta, who appeared for some of the respondents in the two petitions, adopted the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the impugned resolutions contained recruitment rules and not '`conditions of service". He contended that in olden days, servants had no right to promotion and Government's right to appointment was unfettered; that by the impugned resolutions, the Government now puts a fetter on its discretion to promote and the servant gets a right of promotion under the new rules contained in the resolutions and, therefore, the impugned resolutions were not onerous and could not be said to vary the conditions of service of the Government servants to their disadvantage and as such, the petitioners were not entitled to the protection of the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 81 of the Act. 8. 8. The material question that falls for our consideration in these petitions is as to whether the "conditions of service" of the petitioners have been varied to their disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government and as such are hit by the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 81 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 (Act No. 11 of 1960). This would necessarily include the basic question raised on behalf of the Government as to whether the impugned Government Resolutions are, in substance, recruitment rules and not conditions of service. Part VIII of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, deals with the "provisions as to Services". Section 80 thereof makes provisions relating to All-India Services, with which we are not here concerned. Section 81, sub-section (6) and the proviso thereto contain material safeguards for the protection of the prevailing conditions of service of - Government servants who have been allotted to either of the two newly formed States. Section 83 deals with the power of Central Government to give necessary directions to the State Governments for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Part.. Sub-section (6) of Section 81 of the Act reads a' under: "81 (6) ... Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect, after the appointed day, the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to the determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat: Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any person provisionally or finally allotted to the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat under this section shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government." 9. The first question which arises for determination is as to what is the true meaning of the expression "conditions of service" used in the proviso to Section 81(6) of the Act. These words have also been used in the Government of India Act, 1915, in Section 96(2), which deals with the subject of Civil Services in India. Therein, a clear distinction is recognised between the expressions 'methods of their recruitment" and "their conditions of services". These words have also been used in the Government of India Act, 1915, in Section 96(2), which deals with the subject of Civil Services in India. Therein, a clear distinction is recognised between the expressions 'methods of their recruitment" and "their conditions of services". In Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935 also, a distinction is drawn between the two expressions for which different provisions are made in the sub-sections. The same legislative practice of treating recruitment as distinct from conditions of service has been continued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which speaks of rules regulating recruitment, and conditions of service. It appears that the expression "conditions of service" used in the proviso to Section 81(6) of the Act has obviously been transplanted into that provision from| the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Same meaning must, therefore, be assigned to the words in dispute in the impugned Government Resolutions. The expression is of substantially wide amplitude and would, in the absence of any definite indication to the contrary, include rules or regulations relating to the passing of prescribed examinations, to salary or time scales of pay or grades, to suspension, to termination of service, to eligibility and qualifications for promotion, and the like. No matter how the rules are described, it is the substance that has to be looked into and not the form in order to determine the nature of the rules, namely, whether they are styled as recruitment rules or conditions of service. Now, the impugned resolutions as we shall see impose a condition of passing of one of the specified examinations in order to be considered to be eligible for promotion to higher posts. There can be no doubt that the rule which confers a right of actual promotion or a right to be considered for promotion is a rule prescribing a "condition of service". Likewise a rule or a regulation which restricts a right of actual promotion or a right to be considered for promotion is A rule prescribing a condition of service. These propositions can no longer be disputed in view of several pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the point, the latest being the decision in Mohd. Likewise a rule or a regulation which restricts a right of actual promotion or a right to be considered for promotion is A rule prescribing a condition of service. These propositions can no longer be disputed in view of several pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the point, the latest being the decision in Mohd. Bhakar v. Y. Krishna Reddy, Civil Appeal No. 811 of 1968 (SC) decided by a Bench consisting of Shah, J., Ramaswami, J., and Mitter, J., on April 15, 1968. The question in the case was whether the Mysore Secretariat Services (Recruitment Amendment) Rules, 1966, in so far as they prescribed the passing of the departmental examinations as a condition for promotion of Assistants to the cadre of Senior Assistant, were violative of Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, in that they altered the conditions of service of the petitioners who were allottees to the new State of Mysore, to their disadvantage. The Supreme Court held, in the words of Mitter, J. : "Any rule which affects the promotion of a person relates to his conditions of service and it appears to us therefore, that unless there be approval of the Central Government in terms of the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 115, a rule which lays down the passing of certain departmental examinations as a condition for promotion to a person who was an allottee to the new State of Mysore would be in violation of sub-section (7) of S. 115." It is clear that the right of the petitioners to be considered for promotion, was regarded as a condition of service and since the impugned rules imposed a fetter by introducing a requirement which, if not fulfilled, would disentitle the petitioners to be considered for promotion, it was held that the condition of service of the petitioners was altered to their disadvantage. When we speak of a right to be considered for promotion, we must not confuse it with mere chance of promotion: the latter would certainly not be a condition of service. When we speak of a right to be considered for promotion, we must not confuse it with mere chance of promotion: the latter would certainly not be a condition of service. In an earlier decision in State of Mysore v. G. N. Purohit, Civil Appeal No. 2261 of 1965 (SC), decided by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Wanchoo, J. and Ramaswami, J., on January 25, 1967, the position was that the district-wise seniority was changed to State-wise seniority and as a result, the respondents went down in seniority and became very juniors. This, it was urged, affected their chances of promotion which were protected under Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. This contention was negatived by the Supreme Court and Wanchoo, J. speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court observed: "It is said on behalf of the respondents that as their chances 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." A distinction is clearly recognised between a right to be considered for promotion and a mere chance of promotion. If there is a right to be considered for promotion, it is a condition of service but if it is merely a chance of promotion, it is not. Such a right could not be affected by a rule which seeks to vary the condition of service to the disadvantage of the allocated Government servant. 10. Sub-section (6) of S. 81 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 (Act No. 11 of 1960) set out earlier, is in pari materia with sub-section (7) of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act 37 of 1956), which provides: "115(7) .......... 10. Sub-section (6) of S. 81 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 (Act No. 11 of 1960) set out earlier, is in pari materia with sub-section (7) of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act 37 of 1956), which provides: "115(7) .......... Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to the determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or (the State: Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any person referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government." Thus, it would follow that the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 811 of 1968, D/-15-4-1968 (SC) will apply with equal force to a case governed by sub-section (6) of S. 81 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. A rule which affects the promotion of a person relates to his "condition of service" and thus, a rule which lays down the passing of certain departmental examinations as a condition for promotion to a person who was an allottee to the new State of Gujarat, unless previous approval of the Central Govt, is obtained, would be in violation of sub-sec. (6) of S. 81 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. It is in light of these observations that we will now proceed to consider the impugned Government Resolutions, which, as we shall presently point out, lay down the rules for promotion of a person and affect the promotion. 11. In order to appreciate the legal position, we would now refer to the relevant resolutions which have been passed by the Government of Gujarat from time to time and which have been earlier referred to as the impugned resolutions. The first relevant resolution is the one bearing No. CDN-1061/20241-A dated May 10, 1962 of the Health and Development Department Government of Gujarat Ahmedabad, which will hereafter be referred to as "the first resolution". The resolution has been passed by the Government of Gujarat and is signed by one P. S. Mankad. The first relevant resolution is the one bearing No. CDN-1061/20241-A dated May 10, 1962 of the Health and Development Department Government of Gujarat Ahmedabad, which will hereafter be referred to as "the first resolution". The resolution has been passed by the Government of Gujarat and is signed by one P. S. Mankad. In the copy of the resolution which has been annexed to the petitions, it is not stated in what capacity P. S. Mankad has signed the resolution. The resolution reads as under: "Non-Gazetted staff of the Co-operative Department Unified Recruitment Rules for the various posts. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Health and Development Department, Resolution No. CDN-1061/20241-A, Sachivalaya, Ahmedabad-15. Dated 10th May, 1962. Read: Letter No. EST/66 (N. G. O.) dated 4th July, 1961 from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. RESOLUTION: In supersession of the existing rules for recruitment to the various non-Gazetted posts of Ex-Saurashtra State, Kutch and pre-reorganised Bombay State, Government is pleased to sanction the accompanying unified recruitment rules for appointment to the various non-gazetted cadres in the grade of (i) Rs. 200-10-300, (ii) Rs. 150-10-200, (iii) Rs. 100-3-140-10-150, (iv) Rs. 85-4-125, (v) Rs 46-3-85 EB-105 and (vi) Rs. 46-3-85 (other than technical posts) in the Co-operative Department. Government is also pleased to direct that: (i) These unified rules should be made applicable to all the officers and posts allocated from either of the component parts, viz. Kutch, Saurashtra and/or Bombay. (ii) Department Officers already promoted or to be promoted to the posts in the grade of Rs. 200-10-300 and Rs. 150-10-200 will be required to pass Government Diploma in Cooperation and Accountancy Examination within a period of 3 years from the date of these rules come into force, unless they are exempted from passing it. (iii) The case of persons who are above the age of 45 years and who have constantly good record and who are considered eligible for the exemption should be submitted to Government for orders. (iv) x x x x. (v) If Officers fail to pass this examination within the prescribed period and if they are holding these posts in either of the capacities, i.e. officiating or substantive after expiry of the prescribed period, their increment should be stopped and if they have reached the maximum of the scale their pay should be reduced to the next lower stage, until they pass the examination. (vi) After expiry of the prescribed limit as referred to in (ii) above, no promotion to the posts in the grade of Rs. 200-10-300 and Rs. 150-10-200 should be given to the departmental officers unless they have passed the examination. 3. These unified rules should take effect from the date of issue of this resolution. 4. x x x x x. 5. Necessary correction slip to the Bombay Civil Service Classification and Recruitment Rules on this account may be issued by the General Administration Department in due course. Sd. P.S. Mankad." The aforesaid first resolution which thus provides that the departmental officers of the class stated will be required to pass within the period of three years from the date of the said rules coming into force a Government Diploma in Co-operation and Accountancy Examination, is made in supersession of what has been referred to a "the existing rules" for recruitment to the various non-Gazetted posts of Ex-Saurashtra State, Kutch and pre-reorganised State of Bombay. We may here say that our attention is not invited by either side to any particular Gazetted or notified existing rule for recruitment in supersession whereof the new rule embodied in the aforesaid resolution is passed. However, the very opening words of the resolution do indicate that there were some existing rules for recruitment, in supersession whereof this resolution has been passed. In absence of production of any such existing rules on record by the Govt., we would be justified in taking the view that the existing rules did not make it obligatory on the Government servants to pass the G. D. C. & A. examination specified in the first resolution. The resolution, although stated to be providing unified recruitment rules for appointments to the various non-Gazetted cadres, in substance, affects the promotion of an allocated Government servant relating to his "condition of service". It is common ground that the resolution did not receive the previous approval of the Central Government. The proviso to subsection (6) of S. 81 of the Act gives the mandate that the conditions of service cannot be varied to the disadvantage of the Government servant except with the previous approval of the Central Government. Now, Cl. (ii) of the resolution lays down that departmental officers already promoted or to be promoted to the posts in the grade of Rs. Now, Cl. (ii) of the resolution lays down that departmental officers already promoted or to be promoted to the posts in the grade of Rs. 200-10-300 and Rupees 150-10-200 will be required to pass the G. D. C. & A. examination within a period of three years from the date these rules come into force, unless they are exempted from passing it. The failure to pass such an examination is to be visited by the stoppage of the increment and reduction of pay if the Government servant has reached the maximum of the scale. The promotion to the posts in the higher grade will also be barred in such a contingency. Thus, as observed earlier, the first resolution, although styled as a Unified Recruitment Rules for appointment to the various non-Gazetted cadres lays down new conditions of service, conditions which ex facie are onerous and work to the disadvantage of the allocated Govt, servant, who is not shown to have been required earlier by any rule to pass such an examination. The first resolution is thus in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 81 (6) of the Act and is invalid and not enforceable at law. This is apart from the fact that the resolution was superseded by the second resolution which we shall presently consider. 12. The next Government Resolution to be considered is one bearing No. G. K. H./79/CDN-1064-48649-K. dated June 18, 1965, published in the Gujarat Government Gazette, Volume VI, Part IV-A, dated September 2, 1965 which will hereafter be referred to as "the second resolution". The resolution reads: "In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Gujarat is pleased to modify and frame the accompanying recruitment rules for various posts of non-Gazetted cadre in the Cooperative Department in supersession to those sanctioned under Government Resolution, Health and Development Department, No. CDN- 1061/20241-A, dated 10th May, 1962." As an accompaniment to the said Government Notification and under the Caption "Gujarat Co-operative Subordinate Services" and under Head (i) "Upper Subordinate Service", the following rule is made: "(i) Upper Subordinate Service: (A) Recruitment Rules for the posts of Co-operative Officers, Auditors, District Co-operative Officers, Marketing Inspectors, District Officers for C. I and I. C., Milk Organiser, Forest Officer, Superintendent in the First Grade (old) of Rs. 200-10-300 and other posts of equivalent cadre (other than technical posts.). Appointment to these posts shall be made by the Registrar by promotion from amongst the officers who have held post or posts in the grade of Rs. 150-10-200 (old) at least for a period of 3 years and who are of proved merits and efficiency and have passed the examination of Government Diploma in Co-operation and Accountancy. (B) Recruitment Rules for the posts of Co-operative Officer, Auditors, District Co-operative Officers, Marketing Inspectors, District Officers for C. I. and I. C Head Clerks, Accountant Special Supervision Officers, Marketing Officers, Manager Government Emporium in the (old) grade of Rs. 150-10-200 and other posts in the equivalent scales of Rs. 150-10-200 and other posts in the equivalent scale (other than technical posts). (1) Appointment to these posts shall ordinarily be made by the Registrar, by promotion from amongst the departmental persons who have held the post or posts in the grade (old) of Rs. 100-8-150 and/or Rs. 100-8-140 or equivalent posts at least for a period of 3 years, and who may at least have passed the Matriculation or S.S.C. examination and have also passed G. D. C. & A. examination." The aforesaid second resolution which is thus made in supersession of the first resolution also affects the promotion- of the Government servants and thus relates to their "condition of service". It is in violation of the proviso to Section 81 (6) of the Act as it varies condition of service to the disadvantage of the Government servant. 13. The third and the material resolution to be considered is the one passed by the Government of Gujarat in Agriculture and Co-operation Department, bearing No. SRO-1267/4600-B, dated September 14, 1967, which will hereafter be referred to as "the third resolution", makes amendments and additions to the regulation for award of Government Diploma in Cooperation and Accountancy. Before we deal with the resolution, we may say that the State of Gujarat had earlier established under its resolution (Rural Development Department) No. SRO/1060-38449/A dated September 8, 1961, a Board for conducting examination in Co-operation and Accountancy Diploma and for award of the Diploma. The Board is designated as "the Co-operation and Accountancy Board". The said Board conducts examination once in a year in the month of April or May. Regulations for award of the Government Diploma in Co-operation and Accountancy were thereafter made or adopted. The Board is designated as "the Co-operation and Accountancy Board". The said Board conducts examination once in a year in the month of April or May. Regulations for award of the Government Diploma in Co-operation and Accountancy were thereafter made or adopted. The regulations found published in the Gujarat Government Gazette, Part IV-B, dated March 8, 1962, are styled as "Regulations for the Award of the Government Diploma in Co-operation and Accountancy" and consist of 13 Regulations, at times referred to as "the Rules". Appendix "A" to the Regulations contains a syllabus for the Government Diploma in Co-operation and Accountancy Examination. Regulation or Rule 13 which is material for our purpose, provides: "13. No person shall ordinarily be eligible for appointment as a permanent Auditor in the Co-operative Department unless he holds (a) the Government Diploma in Accountancy or (b) a permanent auditor's certificate granted by the Government of India, or (c) the Government Diploma in Co-operative Accountancy or (d) the Government Diploma in Co-operation and Accountancy." The 1962 Regulations have been materially altered by the third resolution. Clause (6) of Para 2 of the third resolution lays down that "the existing Regulation No. 13 should be substituted by following, viz. .............". The substituted Regulation No. 13 is divided into 13(1), 13(2), (i), (ii), (iii), 13(3), 13(4), (i), (ii), (iii), 13(5), 13(6), (i), (ii). Amongst these, 13(1), 13(2), (i), (ii) and (iii) are relevant for our purpose and may be reproduced here: 13(1). No person shall be eligible for appointment by promotion either in an officiating or substantive capacity in the Grade of Rs. 195-10-245 (revised) and above (other than technical posts) in the Co-operative Department unless he holds either (a) Government Diploma in Cooperation and Accountancy, or (b) Government Diploma in Co-operative Accountancy, or (c) Money Lending Examination for the money-lending Department subject to the provisions made in Regulation 13(2) (ii). 13(2)(i) Departmental Officers already nominated prior to the date of this order should be required to pass the examination within three chances during the period of three years from 10.5.1962 or the date of appointment whichever was later. An officer who did not pass the examination within the prescribed chances during the prescribed period, should not be considered eligible for promotion to higher post, if any, carrying pay scale of Rs. 150-10-200 (old) or Rs. An officer who did not pass the examination within the prescribed chances during the prescribed period, should not be considered eligible for promotion to higher post, if any, carrying pay scale of Rs. 150-10-200 (old) or Rs. 195-10-245 (revised) and above, and should also lose his seniority over his juniors in the cadre of higher post till he subsequently the examination. 13(2) (ii) Departmental Officers already promoted to the posts carrying the time scale of Rs. 150-10-200 (old) or Rs. 195-10-245 (revised) and above, prior to 10-5-1965 should be required to pass the examination within three chances during the period of three years from 10-5-1962 or the date of promotion whichever is later, Such officers who did not. do not pass the examination within the prescribed chances during the prescribed period should be reverted to the lower posts previously held by them. 13(2) (iii) An officer who is eligible for promotion to the time scale of Rupees 150-10-200(old) or Rs. 195-10-245 (revised) and above, during he period from 10-5-1965 to the date of this order, should be required to pass this examination within three chances during the period of three years from the date of appointment or the date of eligibility to appear at the examination according to the provision made in Regulation No. 5 or date of this order whichever is later. The chances utilised by them shall, however, be taken into account. Such officer who does not pass the examination within the prescribed chances during the prescribed period shall not be eligible for promotion to higher post carrying the time-scale of Rs 150-10-200(old) or Rs. 195-10-245 (revised) and above, and shall also lose the seniority over his juniors in the cadre of higher posts till he subsequently passes the examination. It may here be states that the original regulation or rule 13 which formed a part of the 1962 regulation for the Government Diploma in Co-operation and Accountancy as also one enacted subsequent to the "appointed day and cannot be allowed to work to the disadvantage of the Government servants who have been allotted to the newly formed State of Gujarat. It is not shown that prior to the appointed day", the Government servant was required to pass any particular examination or to hold any particular Diploma. It is not shown that prior to the appointed day", the Government servant was required to pass any particular examination or to hold any particular Diploma. It may be stated that the Government servant was, before the appointed day only required to pass a prescribed departmental examination in order that he may be considered for promotion to higher post. Here, it may be recalled that all the petitioner have passed the required departmental examination as required by the rules of the pre-reorganised State of Bombay. Now old Regulation No. 13 is substituted by the 1967 new Regulation No. 13,Aforesaid which runs into several sub-parts or sub-rules, and requires the Government servants to pass G.D.C.A. examination in order to be considered eligible for higher post and entails loss of his seniority over his junior in the cadre of higher post. As regards departmental officer already promoted to the posts carrying the specified time-scale and above, and prior to the specified date, the failure is visited by the consequence of reversion of the promoted previously held by him. The examination has to be passed within the prescribed number of chances and during the prescribed period: otherwise the Government servant will not be eligible for promotion to higher posts and will lose the seniority till he subsequently passes the examination. Thus, this third resolution made in 1967 September, clearly imposed onerous conditions and related to their condition of service". It is not the case of the Government that the resolution was made with the previous approval of the Central Government. The resolution which thus varies condition of service to the disadvantages of the petitioning Government servant and without the previous approval of the Central Government cannot be protected and must be held to be invalid and not enforceable at law. In our opinion, the resolution cannot be enforced in the case of the petitioners. 14. The Government thereafter amended the third Resolution so far as it related to Regulation No. 13 (20 (ii) by subsequent Government Resolution, Agriculture and Co-operation Department, Ahmadabad, Bearing SRO, 1268/573-B dated March 16, 1968 and varied Regulation No. 13 (2)(ii) of the third Resolution bearing No. SRO-1267/4600-B dated September 14, 1967. The resolution has been made. 14. The Government thereafter amended the third Resolution so far as it related to Regulation No. 13 (20 (ii) by subsequent Government Resolution, Agriculture and Co-operation Department, Ahmadabad, Bearing SRO, 1268/573-B dated March 16, 1968 and varied Regulation No. 13 (2)(ii) of the third Resolution bearing No. SRO-1267/4600-B dated September 14, 1967. The resolution has been made. "By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat" in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of he Constitution of India and it makes the following amendment to the Regulation No. 13(2) (ii) to The Regulation for the Award of the Government Diploma in Co-operation and Accountancy Examination, namely:- "13(2) (ii) Departmental Officers already promoted to posts carrying the time-scale of Rs. 150-10-200 (old) or Rs. T95-10-245 (revised) and above prior to 10-5-1965 shall be required to pass the examination within three chances during the period of three years from 10-5-1962 or the date of their promotion, whichever is later. Such officers who did not or do not pass the examination within the prescribed chances during the prescribed period shall not be eligible for promotion to next higher post, if any, henceforth, unless they pass the examination. If such officers desire to appear at the examination, they can appear at the examination on payment of examination fee as prescribed under Regulation No. 15." This resolution which will hereafter be referred to as "the fourth resolution", amends Regulation No. 13 (2) (ii) of the third resolution which provided that the Government servant required to pass the examination do not pass the same within three chances during the period of three years should be reverted to the lower posts previously held by them. The provision of reversion appears to have been deleted by this amendment. However, the bar to the eligibility of promotion to the next higher post embodied in Regulation No. 13 (2) (iii) and (i) and the other restrictions contained in Regulation No. 13 (2) (i) and (ii) have been continued. The resolution, in substance, affects the promotion of the Government servant and relates to his condition of service. The condition of service is nonetheless onerous and works to the disadvantage of the petitioning Government servants. The amendment is not shown to have been made with the previous approval of the Central Government. The resolution, in substance, affects the promotion of the Government servant and relates to his condition of service. The condition of service is nonetheless onerous and works to the disadvantage of the petitioning Government servants. The amendment is not shown to have been made with the previous approval of the Central Government. Thus, this fourth resolution also cannot be invoked to the disadvantage of the petitioners and cannot work as a bar to their eligibility for promotion to the next higher post. 15. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that the aforesaid four Government Resolutions, though they are styled as Recruitment Rules, are, in substance, "conditions of service" and vary the "condition of service" of the petitioners as applicable immediately before the "appointed day" to their disadvantage. The conditions are onerous and the previous approval of the Central Government for imposing such conditions has not been obtained. The rules contained in the impugned resolutions affect the right of the petitioners to be considered for promotion and as such, are in violation of the terms of the proviso to Section 81(6) of the Act and invalid qua the allocated Government servants. 16. It was contended by Mr. G.N. Desai that immediately before the "appointed day", the petitioners were governed by the 1939 Bombay Rules of which Note to Rule 6-A provided the passing of the G.D.C.A. Examination as a test for promotion. We may say that Mr. Desai has produced a typed compilation consisting of some circulars, letters and rules of the Co-operative Department. The rules are Civil Services Classification and Recruitment Rules. At page 3 of the rules is found what has been stated to be existing Rule 6-A which provides: "6-A. Appointment of District Co-operative Officer shall be made by the Registrar either: (a) by nomination of persons who are Honours Graduates or who have obtained a Degree in Commerce, Agriculture, Law, or Economics or Government Diploma in Co-operation and Accountancy and unless Government otherwise orders in the case of any candidates who are not more than 30 years of age at the date of selection; or (b) by promotion from the ranks of A. D. C. Os., A. C. Os. Sub-Auditors or the Clerical Establishment of persons deemed suitable by the Registrar and who have qualifications prescribed in clause (a) above." This is followed by a Note on which Mr. Sub-Auditors or the Clerical Establishment of persons deemed suitable by the Registrar and who have qualifications prescribed in clause (a) above." This is followed by a Note on which Mr. Desai has placed great reliance and which reads: "Note: No persons shall be directly recruited as D.C.O. except in the last grade of Rs. 95-5-130 (pre-revision) and person so recruited shall if they have not already passed G.D.C.A. Examination pass in the two papers in Co-operation prescribed for the G.D.C.A. within two years of their appointment. No person shall be promoted to a higher grade unless he passes in all the papers of the G.D.C.A. Examination. "Mr. Desai seeks support for his view from the latter part of the aforesaid Note which provides that" x x x x no persons shall be promoted to a higher grade unless he passes in all the papers of the G.D.C.A. Examination". Relying on this part of the Note, Mr. Desai contends that immediately before the "appointed day", the passing of the G.D.C.A. Examination was necessary for a person to be considered as eligible for promotion. Now, Mr. Desai has not been able to show whether Rule 6-A which contains the Note is a statutory rule or a mere executive direction. Apart from placing before us a typed compilation containing some Bombay Civil Services Classification and Recruitment Rules, Mr. Desai has not been able to tell us whether the rules are gazetted or otherwise notified rules and whether they were made in any particular year and by what authority and under any particular provision of law. Apart from the oral statement made by Mr. Desai, the compilation does not even state the year when the 'existing rule' is said to have been made. We do not know when the 'note' to the rule was added. In the absence of any relevant data on the point, it would not be proper to rely upon Rule 6-A as having any play in the matter before us. Further, a note to a rule has no legal effect. The note is not a part of the rule, but, at best, it is for mere guidance of the competent authorities. In our opinion, therefore, it could not be relied upon as constituting a condition of service of the allocated Government servant immediately before the appointed day. Further, a note to a rule has no legal effect. The note is not a part of the rule, but, at best, it is for mere guidance of the competent authorities. In our opinion, therefore, it could not be relied upon as constituting a condition of service of the allocated Government servant immediately before the appointed day. Furthermore, we find in the same compilation that a circular dated July 14, 1958, is produced. This circular has been issued by the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bombay State, Poona, and bears No. G.N.L./348 of 1958. The subject of the circular is "Promotions and Transfers". Mr. Shah for the petitioners has put reliance upon Para 3 of this circular which lays down " x x x until further orders, passing of G.D.C. & A. Examination will not be deemed to be a qualification for accelerated promotion. Whenever, promotions are necessary, they should be made according to the seniority list". Relying on this part of the circular, Mr. Shah contended that the passing of the G.D.C. & A. Examination, if at all it was necessary earlier, was dispensed with by this circular and therefore, the same could not be said to be a condition of service of the allotted Government servants as applicable immediately before the appointed day. It is true that this circular does indicate that for the purposes of accelerated promotions, the passing of the G.D.C. & A. examination was not a qualifying test. But, this circular also does not show what exactly was the condition of service as regards the promotion. As observed earlier, the compilation placed before us does not clearly indicate whether the rules or the regulations which form part of the compilation were statutory rules or mere executive or administrative instructions. Further, it is not clear whether they are rules regulating recruitment or they prescribe conditions of service. In our opinion, in any view of the matter, note to Rule 6-A cannot be construed as constituting a condition of service and cannot carry the case of the respondents any further. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to consider the contention raised by Mr. Shah and Mr. Gupta that so called 1939 Rules of which note to Rule 6-A which, according to Mr. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to consider the contention raised by Mr. Shah and Mr. Gupta that so called 1939 Rules of which note to Rule 6-A which, according to Mr. Desai, contained the' existing rule, were or were not the rules of the constituent part of the former reorganised State of Bombay, as it came into existence on 1-11-56 and therefore, such rules will not continue in force on the reorganisation of the State by the Act (Act No. 11 of 1960). For the purpose, Mr. Shah wanted to place reliance upon the observations to be found in the case of B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1966 SC 1942, in paragraph 9 of the report, where Sikri, J., speaker the Court had referred to a contention urged by Mr. Nambiar for the respondents in the case that the rules existing imthe constituent parts of the new State of Mysore would be available for recruitment as they had been continued under the States reorganisation Act. Repelling the contention, it was observed by the Supreme Court that " ........ it seems to us that these rules would not be available for recruitment purposes because the Government would be recruiting Assistant Engineers for the whole State and -not for each of the constituent parts of the State. We may clarify that these remarks only deal with recruitment rules". In the view that we are inclined to take that Rule 6-A and the 'note' of the 1939 rules as referred to by Mr. Desai have no play in the matter, it is not necessary to consider further the contention of Mr. Shah in this behalf. 17. Mr. Desai had contended that the petitions which were filed in February, 1968 challenge rules of 1963, meaning the first resolution and as such are barred by delay and laches. There is no merit in this contention. The first resolution which was passed in 1962 was superseded by the second resolution. The Government did not act upon any of the four impugned resolutions until when by the impugned order dated January 23, 1968, it reduced the petitioners to the next lower stage in the grade and passed consequential orders. It was within a reasonably short time thereafter in February that the petitions were filed. A party can file a writ petition when his rights are affected. It was within a reasonably short time thereafter in February that the petitions were filed. A party can file a writ petition when his rights are affected. Clearly, the rights of the petitioners were affected only by passing of the impugned order on January 23, 1968. Therefore, the petitions, which have been filed in February 1968 cannot, in any view of the matter, be said to be barred by delay and laches. The contention of Mr. Desai in this behalf must, therefore, be rejected. 18. As aforesaid, it is not shown that on the day immediately before the "appointed day", there was a rule requiring a Government servant to pass the G.D. C.A. or any other examination other than a departmental examination, which it may be recalled the petitioners have duly passed, as a condition of promotion. The aforesaid four impugned resolutions contain aforesaid rules and regulations which prescribe qualifying test for considerations of promotions, affect the conditions of service of allocated Class III non-Gazetted Government servants and vary the conditions of their service applicable before the "appointed day" to their disadvantage, and since the previous approval of the Central Government had not been obtained, such rules and regulations violate the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 81 of the Act mid are invalid since an absolute bar to promotion except on fulfilling Entirely new conditions which are not shown to have existed immediately before the "appointed day" have been created by the impugned resolutions. It would follow that the impugned order dated January 23, 1968, reducing the pay of the petitioners to the next lower stage in the grade and ordering recovery of the amount, stoppage of increment etc., and affecting their seniority is also invalid and liable to be quashed. The impugned resolutions should not be treated as standing in the way of the petitioners who are allocated Government servants regarding their conditions of service and their eligibility for promotion, as also their seniority and the benefits and emoluments of office to which they may otherwise be entitled to. 19. Accordingly, we allow these two writ petitions and quash the impugned order No. MKM/29-E/444 of 1968 which is Annexure "D" to Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1968 and Annexure "H" to Special Civil Application No. 231 of 1968. 19. Accordingly, we allow these two writ petitions and quash the impugned order No. MKM/29-E/444 of 1968 which is Annexure "D" to Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1968 and Annexure "H" to Special Civil Application No. 231 of 1968. Appropriate writ declaring the impugned four Government resolutions, viz., (1) No. CIN-1061/20241-A, dated May 10, 1962, (2) No. GKH/79/CDN-1064-48649-K, dated June 18, 1965, (3) No. SRO/1267/4600-B, dated September 14, 1967, and (4) No. SRO/1268/573-B,dated March 16, 1968, so far as they concern the petitioning allocated Government servants, and the impugned order as invalid, ultra vires and inoperative in law to issue. Rule in the two petitions made absolute. Respondent No. 1 of the two petitions, viz, the State of Gujarat shall pay the costs of the petitioners in the two petitions and bear its own. The rest of the respondents will bear their own costs of the petitions. Petitions allowed.