CHANDHASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an Assistant Director in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics, in this petition, he has complained that his seniority and prospects of promotion have been adversely affected by transfer of respondents 2 and 3 from the Department of Animal Husbandary and Meterinary services (hereinafter referred to as the Department of AH. and VS.) to the bureau of Economics and Statistics. He has prayed for quasning government Orders by which respondents 2 and 6 were so transferred and were treated as being on deputation in the Department of AH. and VS. He has also asked us to strike down Rule 6 of the Mysore Government servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Seniority rules) and Rule 10 (a) (11) of the Mysore State Civil Services (General recruitment) Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the General Recruitment rules), on the ground of their being unconstitutional. ( 2 ) MOST of the material facts are not in dispute. In November 1962 the government of Mysore appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to the Government, to examine, inter alia, the question of re-organising the administrative set up of the Department of ah. and VS. , with a view to improve the efficiency of that Department. One of the recommendations of that Committee was that while the existing statistical Section of that Department should be continued under the control of the Director of that Department, the incumbents of posts in that Section should be transferrtd to the Department of Statistics and that the Director of the former Department should secure services of officers and staff on deputation basis from the Department of Statistics. By its order dated 23-12-1966 (marked Annexure B) the Government accepted the above recommendation of the said Committee, and directed that the Director of Statistics should spare the services of Officers and statistical staff required by the Department of AH, and VS. , on deputational basis against the sanctioned posts and whenever new posts are created. By this Government Order, respondent 3 who was holding the post of Deputy Director of Statistics (Class I Post) and respondent 2 who was Statistical Assistant (Class III post) and holding the post of Field officer (Class II post) on independent charge basis until further orders, were transferred with immediate effect from the Department of AH. VS. By this Government Order, respondent 3 who was holding the post of Deputy Director of Statistics (Class I Post) and respondent 2 who was Statistical Assistant (Class III post) and holding the post of Field officer (Class II post) on independent charge basis until further orders, were transferred with immediate effect from the Department of AH. VS. , to the Department of Statistics, but were continued in the Statistical wing of the Department of AH. and VS. , on deputation basis. This government Order further directed that the seniority of these two Officers should be regulated by Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules. ( 3 ) BY the Government Order dated 5/8-11-1968 (marked Annexure A) , respondent 2 was treated as being on deputation in the Department of ah. and VS. , in the post of Field Officer (Class II post) with effect from 23-12-1966 which was the date of transfer of officers from that Department to the Bureau of Economics and Statistics. This Government Order further stated that orders regarding shifting of his lien and regularisation of his pay, would be issued separately. ( 4 ) ON behaif of the State, a counter-affidavit had been filed in WP. No. 87 of 1967, a petition presented by another officer in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics. Subsequently that petitioner withdrew that petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The State filed a memo requesting that the counter-affidavit filed on its behalf in WP. No. 87 of 1967 (in which the allegations and contentions are substantially similar to those in the present petition), might be ireated as the counter-affidavit in the present petition. ( 5 ) WE shall first consider the petitioner's attack on the constitutionality of Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General Recruitment Rules. Rule 3 of the General Recruitment Rules which deals "with the meth of recruitment, provides that recruitment to the State Civil Services shall be made by competitive examination or by selection or by promotion and that the method of recruitment and qualifications for each of the State civil Services shall be set forth in the Rules of Recruitment of such service specially made in that behalf. ( 6 ) RULE 16 provides for relaxation of rules relating to appointments and qualifications. The relevant part of Rule 16 reads:"16. ( 6 ) RULE 16 provides for relaxation of rules relating to appointments and qualifications. The relevant part of Rule 16 reads:"16. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, the Government may for reasons to be recorded in writing. (a) appointment to a post- (i ). . . . . . . . . (ii) an officer holding a post of an equivalent grade, by transfer from any other service of the State. " ( 7 ) THUS, it is seen that though the normal method of appointment to a post in the State Civil Service, is by direct recruitment or by promotion, it is also competent for the Government to appoint to a post by transfer an officer from any other service of the State. Such appointment by transfer is subject to two conditions; the first is, the officer transferred from any other service must be holding a post in a grade equivalent to that of the post to which he is appointed by transfer; and the second is, the Government must record its reasons in writing for making such appointment by transfer mr. T. Radhakrishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General Recruitment Rules which empowers the state Government to make recruitment to a post in one Department or service by transfer of an officer from another Department of service, is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, inasmuch as it confers on the Government arbitrary and unguided power which is capable of being exercised capriciously, unreasonably or unjustly. It was argued by Mr, radhakrishna that seniority and prospects of promotion of an officer already working in a Department or Service, will be adversely affected by appointment by transfer of another officer from another Department or service. ( 8 ) SUPPORT for the above contention was sought to be derived from the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. S. R. Jairam, AIR 1968 SC. 346 there, the validity of Rule 9 (2) of the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted probationers Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Gazetted Probationers Rules), came up for consideration. ( 8 ) SUPPORT for the above contention was sought to be derived from the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. S. R. Jairam, AIR 1968 SC. 346 there, the validity of Rule 9 (2) of the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted probationers Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Gazetted Probationers Rules), came up for consideration. Those Rules provide for direct recruitment to several Gazetted cadres in the State service on the basis of the result of a common competitive examination held to test the suitability of candidates fo several cadres. Rule 8 of those Rules provides that a list of successful candidates in such examination shall be published in the order of merit. Those Rules do not contemplate any separate examination to test the suitability of a candidate for any particular cadre; nor do they give the Public Service Commission the power to test such suitability or to recommend that he is more suitable for any particular cadre. Candidates taking the competitive examination are required under these rules to indicate in their applications their preference for the cadres they wish to join. The last part of Rule 9 (2) of those Rules reads: "the Government, however, reserves the right of appointment to any particular cadre, any candidate whom it considers more suitable for such cadre". ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court struck down the aforesaid part of Rule 9 (2) of those Rules as being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution: and on the ground that it gives the Government arbitrary power for appointing any candidate to a particular cadre and that such power can be used by the Government to make unjust discrimination so as to deprive an opportunity to a merited candidate to join the cadre which he considers as having better opportunities for promotion. ( 10 ) WE think there is no similarity between Rule 9 (2) of the Gazetted probationers Rules and Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General Recruitment Rules. The former relates to direct recruitment on the basis of competitive examination while the latter relates to transfer of an officer already in service from one Department or service to another Department or Service. That part of Rule 9 which was struck down by the Supreme Court, gave uncontrolled power to the Government to allocate a successful candidate to any cadre the Government chose. That part of Rule 9 which was struck down by the Supreme Court, gave uncontrolled power to the Government to allocate a successful candidate to any cadre the Government chose. But the power conferred on the government under Rule 16 (a) (ii) oi the General Recruitment Rules, is subject to two restrictions, namely, the officer appointed by transfer from another Department or service, must be holding a post in the same grade, and the Government must record its reasons in writing, for such appointment by transfer. On account of these two important restrictions, the power conferred on the Government under Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General recruitment Rules, cannot be said to be uncontrolled. ( 11 ) AS Rule 9 (2) of the Gazetted Probationers Rdles is not in pari materia with Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General Recruitment Rules, we do not see how the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is of any assistance to the petitioner. ( 12 ) IN making appointments to several posts in the State Civil Services, we think the Government should be given wide choice as to the method of appointment, to meet the varying needs of those posts and to suit diverse circumstances that may prevail in making those appointments. For certain posts, suitable candidates having the requisite knowledge, experience, training and maturity, may not be available for direct recruitment and suitable candidates may not also be available for promotion from the lower grades in that Department or service. In such and similar circumstances, the Government may have to resort to transfer of suitable officers from other Departments or services. ( 13 ) FURTHER, the exigencies of administration may require merger, reorganisation or abolition of Departments or services or parts thereof, or reduction of the number of posts in certain Departments or services, which may necessitate transfer of officers from one Department or service to another. To deny to the Government the power to make such transfer of officers, will seriously hamper the administration. To deny to the Government the power to make such transfer of officers, will seriously hamper the administration. ( 14 ) AS such appointment by transfer can be made of an officer in the same grade or class and not an officer in a lower grade or class in another department or service, there is no scope for patronage by the Government by giving a jump to an officer to a higher grade or class in the guise of transferring him to another Department or service. Another effective safeguard provided in Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General Recruitment Rules, is that the Government should record its reasons in writing, for such transfer. ( 15 ) IN view of these two safeguards, it cannot be said that the power conferred on the Government under Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General recruitment Rules, Is unguided or uncontrolled or arbitrary. If in any particular case it is found that the Government has exercised its power under Rule 16 (a) (ii) arbitrarily or capriciously or out of collateral considerations, the exercise of such power in that particular case, may be struck down by the Courts. But the conferment on the Government of such power cannot, by itself, be held to be violative of Art. 14 of the constitution on the ground of being unguided, uncontrolled or arbitrary. While dealing with Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules, we shall examine whether that Rule and Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General Recruitment Rules, are violative of Art. 16 of the Constitution. ( 16 ) RULE 6 of the Seniority Rules reads:"r. 6. The transfer of a person in public interest from one class or grade of a service to another class or grade carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purposes of seniority; and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade from which he was transferred: provided that, where the transfer is made at the request of the officer, he shall be placed in the seniority list of the class or grade of service to which he is transferred below all the officers borne on that class or grade of service on or before the date of the transfer. " ( 17 ) IT was contended bv Mr. Radhakrishna that Rule 6, in so far as it provides for counting the previous service of an officer transferred to another Department or service, for reckoning his seniority in that department or service, is arbitrary and offends Art. 14 of the Constitution. Once the power of the Government to transfer a person from one department or service to another in public interest, is accepted, it is difficult to conceive any rational basis other than the one embodied in Rule 6, for determining the seniority of an officer who has been transferred from one Department or service to another. Should it be provided that an officer who is so transferred, shall be placed in the senioriy list of the new department or service (to which he is transferred) below all officers borne on that class or grede of service on or before the date of his transfer, then, such officer will lose, for no fault of his, the benefit of his previous service in the equivalent grade or class, for the purpose of seniority in the new department or sendee, and it would work a great injustice to him. When the transfer of such off cer is not out of his volition, but at the instance of the Government and in public interest, it is but reasonable that the previous sendee of such officer in the equivalent grade or class should be taken into account for reckoning his senioritv in the Department or service to which he has been transferred. Far from being arbitrary or unreasonable, the provision of Rule 6 of the Senioritv Rules, is just and fair. Mr. Radhakrishna contended that the combined operation of Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General Recruitment Rules and Rule 6 of the Seniority rules, will adverselv affect senioritv and prospects of promotion of officers who have alreadv been working in the Department or service to which an officer of another Department or service is transferred, that these two rules deprive equnlity of opportunity to such officers for promotion to higher posts in their Department or service and hence these two Rules are violative of Art. 16 of the Constitution. ( 18 ) NO official can claim promotion to any higher post as of right unless promotion, as of right, is made a condition of his service. ( 18 ) NO official can claim promotion to any higher post as of right unless promotion, as of right, is made a condition of his service. Even if such a right is a condition of his service, such right can be modified or abridged by rules made by the President or the Governor under the proviso to Art, 309 of the Constitution, regulating conditions of services. If under the rules governing recruitment he is merely eligible for promotion to a higher post, all that he can claim is that his case should be considered for such promotion when an occasion for promotion arises. In the present case, it is not shown that promotion, as of right, to the next higher grade of post, was a condition of service of the petitioner. On the other hand, when he entered service in the year 1960, he must have known that under Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General Recruitment Rules and under Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules, his seniority and prospects of promotion were likely to be affected by transfer of officers from othe Departments or cervices. We do not see how Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the General Recruitment Rules and rule 6 or the Seniority Rules, can be regarded as violating equality of opportunity for promotion guaranteed by Art. 16 of the Constitution. ( 19 ) IT was next contended by Mr. Radhakrishna that the post held by respondent-2 in the Department of A. H. and V. S. , before his transfer, could not be regarded as being in a grade equivalent to the one to which he was transferred in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics, because the minimum academic qualification prescribed for the latter post, was higher than that prescribed for the former post. ( 20 ) IT was submitted by the learned Government Advocate that respondent-2 who was in a class-III post, had only been incharge of the post of field Officer which was a class-II post, while the petitioner was officiating in class-It post, that the relative seniority as between the petitioner and respondent-2 in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics, has yet to be determined and that the apprehension of the petitioner that his seniority has been affected by the transfer of respondent-2 from the Department of a. H. and V. S. to the Bureau of Economics and Statistics, was premature. Mr. Mr. Radhakrishna has not controverted the statement made by the learned Government Advocate that the relative seniority, as between the petitioner and respondent-2 in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics has not yet been determined. We think the learned Government Advocate was right in saying that the petitioner's complaint that his seniority has been adversely affected by the transfer of respondent-2, is premature. Hence, we do not express any opinion on this part of the petitioner's case. After such determination of the seniority, as between the petitioner and respondent-2, if the petitioner feels aggrieved, it is open to him to agitate that matter in such manner as may be permissible under the law. ( 21 ) IT was not disputed by Mr. Radhakrishna that respondent-3 was in a clsss-I post when he was transferred from the Department of A. H. and V. S. , to the Bureau of Economics and Statistics, while the petitioner was in a class-II post. When respondent-3 was in a class-I post, the petitioner who is in a cless-II post, can have no legitimate grievance regarding his seniority vis-a-vis respondent-3. However Mr. Radhakrishna contended that the petitioner's grievance about the transfer of respondent-3, was not so much about the relative seniority as about the abridgement of prospects of his promotion on account of respondent-3 occupying the post of Deputy director (class I post) in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics. Mr. Radhakrishna has not placed satisfactory materials to show what was the number of posts of Deputy Directors in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics prior to the transfer of officers from the statistical Section of the Department of A. H. and V. S. to the Bureau of Economics and Statistics, what was the number of posts of the Deputy Directors in the said Bureau thereafter, and whether the number of nosts of Deputy Directors in that bureau was increased after such transfer of officers. In the absence of such materials, it is not possible to accept the petitioner's averment that as a result of the transfer of respondent-3 to the said Bureau, the opportunities available to Assistant Directors in the said Bureau for promotion to the posts of the Deputy Directors have been reduced. In the absence of such materials, it is not possible to accept the petitioner's averment that as a result of the transfer of respondent-3 to the said Bureau, the opportunities available to Assistant Directors in the said Bureau for promotion to the posts of the Deputy Directors have been reduced. ( 22 ) EVEN if it is true that such opportunities for promotion have been so reduced, we do not see how the petitioner can have anv legal remedy because it has not been shown that promotion to the post of Deputy Director is a condition of service of the petitioner and that he has a right to claim promotion to that post. Another contention urged by Mr. Radha krishna was that as the government order dated 23-12-1966 (Annexnre-B) did not state that the transfer of officers in the Statistical Section of the Department of A. H. and v. S. to the Bureau of Economics and Statistic, was made in the interest of public service, one of the requirements of Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Rules, was not satisfied. ( 23 ) AS stated earlier, what is required under Rule 16 (a) (ii) of the general Recruitment Rules, is that the Government should record its reasons in writing for transfer of an officer from one service to another. Reading the Government order. Annexure-B, as a whole, it is clear that the transfer of officers from the Statistical Section of the Department of a. H. and V. S. to the Bureau of Economics and Statistics, was made linger that order in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee which went into the question of re-organisation of the Department of A. H. and v. S. The Government has stated in that order the reasons for such transfer of officers. Thus, the requirement of Rule 16 of the General Recruitment Pules, has been satisfied, even though it is not expressly stated in the order dt. 23-12-1966 that the transfer was made in the interest of public service. ( 24 ) LASTLY, it was contended for the petitioner that the transfer of officers from the Statistical Section of the Department of A. H. and V. S. to the pureau of Economics and Statistics, was mala fide and was done with the collateral object of conferring benefits to persons like respondents 2 and 3. ( 24 ) LASTLY, it was contended for the petitioner that the transfer of officers from the Statistical Section of the Department of A. H. and V. S. to the pureau of Economics and Statistics, was mala fide and was done with the collateral object of conferring benefits to persons like respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner has not even stated which particular person or persons acted mala fide. Apart from merely making the vague allegation that such transfer of officers was mala fide, the petitioner has not placed any material to substantiate such plea. ( 25 ) AS stated earlier, such transfer of officers was made on the recommendation of the committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to the Government. It is difficult to think that the said committee recommended such transfer of officers and that the Government accepted that recommendation and made such transfer of officers, for the collateral purpose of conferring any favour to those officers and not in public interest. We have no hesitation in rejecting the petitioner's plea of mala fide, as baseless. ( 26 ) ALL the contentions of the petitioner fail and we dismiss this petition. As the petitioner made the allegation of mala fide light-heartedly and made no attempt to substantiate the same, we think this is an appropriate case to impose costs on the petitioner. We direct him to pay the costs of respondent-1. Advocate's Fee Rs. 100. 00. --- *** --- .