JUDGMENT Pathak, J. - The appellant was a candidate for appointment to the post of Tahsildar. The selection took place in the year 1966, and a list of candidates approved for appointment was published on May 27, 1967. The appellant was nog selected. He was officiating as Tahsildar, and by an order dated June 28, 1967, he was reverted to his substantive post of Naib Tahsildar. By a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, he challenged the selection of 1966 including the list of May 27, 1967. He also sought relief against the order reverting him. The petition has been dismissed by a learned single judge, and now this Special Appeal comes before its. 2. Recruitment to the post of Tehsildar is governed by the U. P. Adhinasth Rajaswa, Iaryakari (Tehsildar) Sewa Niyamawali, 1966, referred to hereafter as the "Tehsildar Niyamawali". It replaced an earlier body of rules known as the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Tehsildars) Rules 1944. The Tehsildars Niyamawali provides for an Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue Executive (Tehsildars) Service, the strength of the service, the sources of recruitment, the qualifications of candidates, the procedure for recruitment, and the conditions of service. 3. Rule 5 declares that recruitment to the service shall be made by promotion of Naib Tehsildars, Peshkars of the Kumaon Division, Kanungo Inspectors and Instructors, and Sadar Kanungos. Rule 6 provides : "For the purposes of recruitment to the service, selection strictly on merit shall be made from amongst all permanent Naib Tahsildar's, Peshkars of the Kumaon Division, Kanungo Inspectors or Instructors and Sadar Kanungos, who have put in at least seven years' service in the aggregate as such or have served in an equivalent or higher post in a substantive or officiating capacity on the first day of January of the year in which the Selection is made." 4. The appellant points out that the list of May 27, 1967 includes a number of permanent Naib Tehsildars who were formerly Collection Naib Tehsildars. In their case, it is said the period of seven years' service required by Rule 6 can be completed only if to the period for which they have served as Naib Tehsildars you add the period spent by them as Collection Naib Tehsildars. In their case, it is said the period of seven years' service required by Rule 6 can be completed only if to the period for which they have served as Naib Tehsildars you add the period spent by them as Collection Naib Tehsildars. And the question raised is whether the period served as Collection Naib Tehsildars can be treated as a period "served in an equivalent or higher post in a substantive or officiating capacity" for the purposes of Rule 6. Admittedly, the post of Collection Naib Tahsildar is not higher than the post of Naib Tehsildar. The contention of the appellant is that the period served as Collection Naib Tehsildars cannot be treated as service in "an equivalent post in a substantive or officiating capacity". And the contention proceeds on two grounds (a) that having regard to the status, sources of recruitment, qualifications for recruitment, conditions of service, nature of duties and avenues of promotion, the post of Collection Naib Tehsildar was inferior to the post of Naib Tehsildar and (b) assuming it was equivalent, then the equivalence holds only between the post of a permanent Collection Naib Tehsildar and the post of a permanent Naib Tehsildar, and any period served in a temporary post of Collection Naib Tehsildar cannot, therefore, be considered in computing the period of seven years; inasmuch as all these erstwhile Collection Naib Tehsildars held permanent posts only from or after April 1, 1959, the period of seven years was not completed on January 1, 1966 and, therefore, they were not qualified for the selection of 1966. 5. We consider it appropriate to consider the latter submission first. A few facts may be set out at this stage to explain the origin and status of the post referred to commonly as that of Collection Naib Tehsildar. 6. On July 1, 1952, when the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was brought into force and zamindari was abolished, the tiller of the soil was brought into direct relationship with the State, and land revenue now became payable by a numerous host of cultivators to the State. As the existing cadre of Naib Tehsildars was wholly insufficient to meet the responsibilities of revenue collection, the State Government proposed a more extensive machinery. As the existing cadre of Naib Tehsildars was wholly insufficient to meet the responsibilities of revenue collection, the State Government proposed a more extensive machinery. By G. O. No. 8466 (10) IB-662B I51 dated August 20, 1952 the State Government detailed a scheme providing for the recruitment of extra Naib Tehsildars. The scheme was to come into force from October 1, 1952. In that year, an adhoc selection of temporary Naib Tehsildars was made by a Selection Committee, and the persons selected included Supervisor Kanungos, Canal Naib Tehsildars, ex-Manager and Assistant Managers of the Court of Wards, and retrenched employees of the Food and Civil Supplies and Agriculture Department. They included about 40 candidates who were not selected in the competitive examination for direct recruitment to the posts of Naib Tehsildars held in the year 1950, 1951 and 1952. Two hundred temporary posts of Naib Tehsildars were created, and upon selection from a number of candidates 177 of these temporary posts were filled by G. O. No. 115261 IBI 923 BI 52 dated October 29, 1952 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The number of temporary posts was increased from time to time as necessity required. The Naib Tehsildars so recruited began to be referred to as Naib Tehsildars (Collection) , and we find reference to them as such in G. O. No. 11565/1B dated December 12, 1953. The temporary posts of Collection Naib Tehsildars were constituted into a distinct and separate cadre with effect from November 1, 1952, by an order of the State Government dated June 13, 1958. In the year 1955 and again in the year 1961, a joint recruitment was made through the Public Service Commission for direct appointment to the posts of Nail) Tehsildars (Regular) and to the posts of Collection Naib Tehsildars through a single competitive examination. Naib Tehsildars (Regular) were selected from candidates who stood highest in order of merit, and the Collection Naib Tehsildars were selected from those following in order of merit. Then, of the several temporary posts of Collection Naib Tehsildars, 161 posts were made permanent with effect from April 1, 1959. Another 161 posts were made permanent with effect from April 1, 1960. Finally, 162 posts were made permanent with effect from April 1, 1962. In this way 484 permanent posts of Collection Naib Tehsildars were created. Then, of the several temporary posts of Collection Naib Tehsildars, 161 posts were made permanent with effect from April 1, 1959. Another 161 posts were made permanent with effect from April 1, 1960. Finally, 162 posts were made permanent with effect from April 1, 1962. In this way 484 permanent posts of Collection Naib Tehsildars were created. Collection Naib Tehsildars, who occupied temporary posts, were appointed to these permanent posts. 7. Subsequently by G. O. No. 1831 (i) IF-220J/62 dated August 24, 1963 was added to the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tehsildars) Rules, I C44. It provides : "39. Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these rules; (1) All the permanent and temporary posts of 'Collection Naib Tehsildar' existing as on November 14, 1962, shall, with effect from November 15, 1962, be deemed to have been redesignated as Naib Tehsildar', and added to the permanent and temporary cadres respectively of the service; (2) all persons who were serving as Collection Naib-Tehsildars in the State on November 14, 1962 in a substantive capacity shall be deemed to have been appointed as "Members of the service", as defined in clause (g) of Rule 3; (3) persons who were serving as Collection Naib Tehsildars in the State on November 14, 1962 in an officiating capacity or in temporary posts shall be deemed to have been appointed as Naib Tehsildars in officiating or temporary vacancies, as the case may be in accordance with the rules and shall be eligible for appointments as members of the service, in consultation with the Commission, and (4) The Governor may direct that the said rules or any individual rule thereof shall not apply or shall apply with such modification as he may specify, to the persons mentioned in sub-rules (2) and (3) in respect of their recruitment on appointment to the Service and other conditions of service relating thereto." Reverting to the contention before us, it is necessary to turn back to the provisions of Rule 6 of the Tehsildars Niyamawali. 8. It will be noticed that Rule 6, which sets out the field of eligibility for appointment to the post of Tehsildar, requires that as regards candidates who ire permanent Naib Tehsildars, they must have put in at least seven years as such. In other words, they must have completed at least seven years' service as permanent Naib Tehsildars. 8. It will be noticed that Rule 6, which sets out the field of eligibility for appointment to the post of Tehsildar, requires that as regards candidates who ire permanent Naib Tehsildars, they must have put in at least seven years as such. In other words, they must have completed at least seven years' service as permanent Naib Tehsildars. Alternatively, they should have served in an equivalent or higher post in a substantive or officiating capacity. The alternative contemplates that a part or the entire period of seven years' service should have been in an equivalent or higher post. To be an "equivalent post", it must be equivalent to the permanent post of Naib Tehsildar. Assuming that the permanent post of Collection Naib Tehsildar is equivalent to the permanent post of Naib Tehsildar, the question is whether the temporary post of Collection Naib Tehsildar is equivalent to the permanent post of Naib Tehsildar. 9. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "equivalent" as "equal in value, power, efficacy or import, having equal or corresponding significance". Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "equivalent" as "of the same value". The Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 30 p. 1131) defines "equivalent" as "alike in significance and value; as good as, equal in worth or value, force, power, effect, import and the like; equally good, equal so far as concerns the matter under consideration; having equal or corresponding import, meaning or significance, identical in effect; of equal value; of the same import or meaning". It says that the term has been held synonymous with "alike" and "identical", and has been compared with and distinguished from "similar". Can it be said that for the purposes of Rule 6 the temporary post of Collection Naib Tehsildar satisfies the tests laid down by these definitions in relation to the post of permanent Naib Tehsildar ? Rule 6 prescribes the qualifications for recruitment to the post of Tehsildar. It requires that to qualify for recruitment, Naib Tehsildars must hold permanent posts. Apparently, the status of the post has been considered material. The Naib Tehsildar candidates have been confined to a class characterised by stability of service and all the rights and status which go with such service. A permanent past and a temporary post are two distinct posts. It requires that to qualify for recruitment, Naib Tehsildars must hold permanent posts. Apparently, the status of the post has been considered material. The Naib Tehsildar candidates have been confined to a class characterised by stability of service and all the rights and status which go with such service. A permanent past and a temporary post are two distinct posts. Now, when we turn to the alternative source of recruitment, it will be noticed that here also the qualification is by reference to the post held by the candidate. It must be 'an equivalent or higher post'. It must be equivalent to the permanent post of Naib Tehsildar. Can that be said of the temporary post of Collection Naib Tehsildar ? The answer, we think, must clearly be in the negative. From the conditions of service under which Collection Nail) Tehsidars worked before permanent posts were created in 1959, it appears that the post was a temporary post and service thereon was terminable at any time subject to one month's notice. It was specifically provided that the incumbent would have no claim to permanent Government service. 10. It will also be useful at this stage to compare the temporary post of Collection Naib Tehsildar with the permanent post of Collection Naib Tehsildar. It appears from Rule 39 of the U. P. Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tehsildars) Rules 1944, that the permanent posts of Collection Naib "Tehsildars were redesignated as permanent posts of Naib Tehsildars and tided to the permanent cache of that service. Persons serving as Collection Naib Tehsildars in a substantive capacity were deemed to be appointed a; "Members of the service". Temporary posts were likewise redesignated and added to the temporary cadre of the service. Persons serving in the temporary posts of Collection Naib Tehsildars were deemed to have been appointed as Naib Tehsildars in temporary vacancies and were eligible for appointment as members of the service in consultation with the Commission. Unlike those who held permanent posts of Collection Naib Tehsildars they did not automatically become members of this service. As between them, the temporary post of a Collection Naib Tehsildar was not equivalent to the permanent post of Collection Naib Tehsildar. If that is so, we find it difficult to hold that the temporary post of Collection Naib Tehsildar can be treated as equivalent to the permanent host of Naib Tehsildar. 11. As between them, the temporary post of a Collection Naib Tehsildar was not equivalent to the permanent post of Collection Naib Tehsildar. If that is so, we find it difficult to hold that the temporary post of Collection Naib Tehsildar can be treated as equivalent to the permanent host of Naib Tehsildar. 11. Another aspect of the matter may be considered. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the service of Collection Naib Tehsildars was merely a wing of the service of Naib Tehsildars, and the only difference lay in the circumstance that the main functions of a Collection Naib Tehsildar related to the collection of land revenue while in respect of a Naib Tehsildar that was only one of his many functions. It was also pointed out that the addition of Rule 39 in 1963 to the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tehsildar) Rule, 1949 confirms that position inasmuch as the distinction between Collection Naib Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars was expressly removed, Collection Naib Tehsildars being redesignated as Naib Tehsildars and added to the permanent and temporary cadres of the latter. According to this submission, there should be no difference between a Collection Naib Tehsildar and a Naib Tehsildar. Now, if this he so, then the period served by a Collection Naib Tehsildar in a temporary post cannot be considered in computing the period of seven years under Rule 6 of the Tehsildar Niyamawali, even as it can not be taken into consideration in the case of the Naib Tehsildar while serving in a temporary post. A Naib Tehsildar is eligible under Rule 6 only if he has put in seven years service in a permanent post as Naib Tehsildar. That should also be so in the case of a Collection Naib Tehsildar. This is another ground, we think, which strengthens our opinion that the period of service of a Collection Naib rehsildar in a temporary post cannot be considered for the purposes of Rule 6. 12. We may also note the contention of the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the Sate that in construing Rule 6 and considering whether a post was an equivalent post for the purpose of that rule, the equivalence must be examined in relation to the several posts specified in the rule. 12. We may also note the contention of the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the Sate that in construing Rule 6 and considering whether a post was an equivalent post for the purpose of that rule, the equivalence must be examined in relation to the several posts specified in the rule. In.other words, he urges, whether the post in equivalent must be examined not merely in relation to the post of permanent Naib Tehsildar but also the post of Peshkars of the Kumaon Division,_Kanungo Inspectors or Instructors and Sadar Kanungos. In our opinion, so far as the present point before us is concerned, it makes little difference when we do so. The word "permanent" in Rule 6 refers to each of the several posts specified in the rule, and there is nothing to show that the temporary post of Collection Naib Tehsildar can be said to be equivalent to any of the permanent posts mentioned in Rule 6. 13. In the circumstances, it is not necessary for us to consider the other submission that the post of Collection Naib Tehsildar is not equivalent to the post of Naib Tehsildar and that, therefore, the period served as Naib Tehsildar cannot be considered in computing the period of seven years. 14. We think it right at this stage to examine the contention urged by the .earned Chief Standing Counsel for the State that by reason of Rule 23 of the Tehsildars Niyamawali it is not open to the appellant to challenge the eligibility of the erstwhile Collection Naib Tehsildars under Rule 6. Rule 23 provides that if any question arises as to the interpretation of the rules it shall be referred to the State Government in the Revenue Department whose decision thereon shall be final. It is said that a decision was taken in the matter by the State Government in the Revenue Department, that the decision was final and binding on all those who sought the benefit of the rules, and that, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to agitate the matter now in a court of law. It is said that a decision was taken in the matter by the State Government in the Revenue Department, that the decision was final and binding on all those who sought the benefit of the rules, and that, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to agitate the matter now in a court of law. We have been referred to paragraph 39 of the writ petition, out of which this special, appeal arises, staling that "the Government, purporting to act under Rule 23 of the Niyamawali gave its decision that the Collection Naib Tehsildars are eligible for being selected as Tehsildars." The question arose before us as to whether there was any evidence of a decision by the State Government under Rule 23, and the notings of the Revenue Department and of the appointment Department as well as the letter of the Secretary and other document were placed before us. It appears from these documents that the only question considered was whether Collection Naib Tehsildars, having regard to their appointment, duties and star us, were the same as Naib Tahsildars (Regular). The view expressed by the Revenue Department was that Collection Naib Tehsildars were Naib Tehsildars even before merger in the cadre of the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib -lelrsildars) and that "as soon as they were made permanent in that cadre they became eligible for promotion as Tehsildars under the Sobordinate Executive Revenue Service (Tehsildars) Rules provided they had the requisite length of service" (Italicised mine) . It will be noticed that the Revenue Department emphasised that requisite length of service was material for consideration before it could be held that Collection Naib Tehsildars were eligible for promotion as Tehsildars. And also that it was when they became permanent that they became eligible. The Revenue Department expressed no opinion on the specific point whether the temporary post of Collection Naib Tehsildar was equivalent to the permanent post of Naib Tehsildar. Nor was this question specifically dealt with by the Appointment Department. Its note dealt with a Collection Naib Tehsildar functioning in an officiating capacity. The Revenue Department expressed no opinion on the specific point whether the temporary post of Collection Naib Tehsildar was equivalent to the permanent post of Naib Tehsildar. Nor was this question specifically dealt with by the Appointment Department. Its note dealt with a Collection Naib Tehsildar functioning in an officiating capacity. These nothings were made apparently because after the decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Saxena v. State of U. P., Writ Petition No. 2818 of 1964 decided on 13.03.1965 a difference of opinion arose between the State Government and the U. P. Public Service Commission on the question whether a Collection Naib Tehsildar could be said to have served in a post equivalent to the post of Naib Tehsildar. In that case what was decided was that the two posts were not equivalent having regard to the nature of their duties, conditions of services, and other factors. The contention that Rule 23 precludes the appellant from raising the point before us must be rejected. 15. We are told that of the 144 candidates mentioned in the list of May 27, 1967 as approved for appointment as Tehsildars there are 16 who were formerly collection Naib Tehsildars. Upon the considerations which have prevailed with us, we are of opinion that those Collection Naib Tehsildars were not qualified for recruitment in 1966 and that, therefore, their selection is invalid. 16. While on this part of the case, it would be appropriate to consider the appellants' contentions that the G. 0. dated August 24, 1963, adding Rule 39 to the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tehsildars) Rules 1944 is Ultra wires. Rule 39 was made by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in the purported exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The proviso to Article 339 enables the Governor to make rules "regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service, of persons appointed" to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. It is said that what has been done by making Rule 39 is not to regulate the recruitment or the conditions of service, and that, therefore, the power exercised does not fall within the proviso. Reliance has been placed on State of Mysore v. Padamanabhacharya, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 602. It is said that what has been done by making Rule 39 is not to regulate the recruitment or the conditions of service, and that, therefore, the power exercised does not fall within the proviso. Reliance has been placed on State of Mysore v. Padamanabhacharya, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 602. That case was concerned with a Rule made by the Governor of Mysore declaring that Government Servants, who had been retired from service c.n attaining the age of 55 years during a certain period would be deemed to have been validly retired from service on superannuation. The Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the Rule could not be said to be a rule regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. It observed that all that the Rule did was to say that certain persons who had been invalidly retired should be deemed to have been validly retired from service on superannuation and it pointed out that its effect would be to contravene Article 311 of the Constitution. The substance of the Rule was to validate an order which was invalid when made, and that power, the Supreme Court said, did not flow from the power conferred on the Governor to make rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service. The Supreme Court observed : "But what this notification or rule does is to select certain Government servants who had been illegally required to retire and to say that even if the retirement had been illegal, that retirement should be deemed to have been properly and lawfully made." Rule 39, with which we are concerned, is entirely different. The effect of Rule 39 is to abolish the posts of Collection Naib Tehsildars and to create a corresponding number of posts of Naib Tehsildars. Its effect further is to appoint persons, hitherto serving as Collection Naib Tehsildars to the newly created posts of Naib Tehsildars. Clearly, the Rule is one within the proviso to Article 309. 17. The validity of Rule 39 is also challenged on the ground that it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as it brings about discrimination between those who were Collection Naib Tehsildars on the one hand and those who were Naib Tehsildars on the other. Clearly, the Rule is one within the proviso to Article 309. 17. The validity of Rule 39 is also challenged on the ground that it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as it brings about discrimination between those who were Collection Naib Tehsildars on the one hand and those who were Naib Tehsildars on the other. It is pointed out that the candidates selected as Naib Tehsildars were made to go through a rigorous process of probation, departmental examination and training, and only there after were they confirmed, and we are referred to Rules 24 to 27 of the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tehsildars) Rules, 1944. The Collection Naib Tehsildars, it is said, have by a stroke of the pen been made Naib Tehsildars without passing through that rigorous process. We are unable to hold that any unconstitutional discrimination has been practised. There can be no comparison between candidates freshly appointed as Naib Tehsildars who must, therefore, undergo a process of training and examination and be put on probation before they are confirmed, and Collection Naib Tehsildars who have already functioned as such for a number of years. A Collection Naib Tehslidar appointed as Naib Tehsildar brings to that post the matured experience of years gained from discharging functions some of which are akin to those involved in the post of Naib Tehsildar. In our opinion, Rule 39 does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 18. The next contention is that while making the selection of candidates as Tehsildars there has been non-compliance with some of the Rules contained in the Tehsildars Niyamawali. 19. It is urged that Rules 9 (1) and (2) have been contravened because the lists drawn up by the Board contained more than double the number of vacancies to be filled. Rule 9 (1) provides that the names in the list shall 'ordinarily' be double the number of substantive vacancies to be filled during the year. Rule 9 (2) makes provision for a supplementary list of officials considered suitable for officiating and temporary promotions, and declares that the names in this list shall 'ordinarily' be equal to the probable number of vacancies expected to occur during the course of the year. The submission is that there must be good reasons for departing from the normal rule. Rule 9 (2) makes provision for a supplementary list of officials considered suitable for officiating and temporary promotions, and declares that the names in this list shall 'ordinarily' be equal to the probable number of vacancies expected to occur during the course of the year. The submission is that there must be good reasons for departing from the normal rule. We accept the contention that the use of the word 'ordinarily' does not confer upon the Board an absolute discretion as to the number of names to be included in the lists, and that there should be sound reasons to depart from the provision embodied in the Rule. But we hold that no material injury can be said to have arisen to the appellant by reason of the circumstance that more than double the number of names contemplated by the Rule were included in the lists. And that is because by Rule 9 (3) the two lists are forwarded by the Board to the Commission and it is open to the Commission thereafter to add to either of the lists referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 9 the names of officials who deserve to be considered by the Selection Committee. When there is power in the Commission to subsequently add names to the lists, we are unable to see how any material prejudice is occasioned by the original lists containing more than the number of names contemplated by Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 9. In paragraph 53 of the Counter Affidavit of K. C. Malhotra, filed on behalf of the Board, it is clearly stated that the Commission itself was of the opinion that all the eligible candidates, who number 694, should be interviewed by the Selection Committee and that all these persons were called for interview. 20. In paragraph 53 of the Counter Affidavit of K. C. Malhotra, filed on behalf of the Board, it is clearly stated that the Commission itself was of the opinion that all the eligible candidates, who number 694, should be interviewed by the Selection Committee and that all these persons were called for interview. 20. The appellants relies upon certain observations made by this Court in Ganesh Singh Seth v. State of U. P., Special appeal No. 768 of 1968 decided on Gyanendra Kumar and Gangeshwar Prasad, JJ on March 27, 1969 where, examining the Indian Administrative Service lndian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, the learned Judges quashed the lists and select lists of the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service prepared for the year 1969 on two grounds (a) the Selection of the State Officers for those all India Services should have been in order of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit, that once the names of the State Officers in order of their seniority had been brought on the select list they should have been normally retained in the successive lists until their absorption into the All India Service according to their respective seniority unless meanwhile their individual merit and suitability had fallen, and (b) the State Government could not terminate the appointment of the petitioners to the senior cadre posts without a direction of the Central Government as required by Rule 9 (3) of the Service Cadre Rules, 1954 or without a definite finding by the State Government that they had become unsuitable to continue in the cadre post and must, therefore, be reverted to their respective State Services. The select list envisaged by Regulation 5 has to be prepared after taking into consideration the names appearing in the select list in force immediately before. Regulation 5 (4) provides that the list so prepared shall be reviewed and revised every year. Regulation 6 provides that the list prepared in accordance with Regulation 5 shall be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission. And under Regulation 7 the Commission is required to consider the list for granting its approval thereto. The list as finally approved forms the select list. The select list, by Regulation 7 (4), remains in force until it is reviewed and revised under Regulation 5. 21. The position is very different as regards the impugned selection under the Tehsildars Niyamawali. And under Regulation 7 the Commission is required to consider the list for granting its approval thereto. The list as finally approved forms the select list. The select list, by Regulation 7 (4), remains in force until it is reviewed and revised under Regulation 5. 21. The position is very different as regards the impugned selection under the Tehsildars Niyamawali. The Tehsildars Niyamawali was brought into force in 1966, and the impugned selection was the first selection made under it. The lists drawn up under Rule 9 were the first lists prepared. There were no earlier lists prepared under the Tehsildars Niyamawali. And there is nothing in Rule 9 to suggest that the names contained in lists prepared earlier under the U. P. Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Tehsildars) Rules, 1944 have to be considered when preparing the lists under the Niyamawali. We are unable to accept the contention that under the Tehsildars Niyamawali the lists forwarded by the Board to the Commission had to be confined, as far as possible, to the names of the earlier lists prepared under the Tehsildars Rules of 1944. 22. There is the further contention of the appellant that the selection should have been made yearwise, and inasmuch as a number of years had elapsed before the selection was made in 1966 the candidates should have been considered separately according to the lists drawn up by reference to each year. The grievance is that by considering all the candidates in one selection the area over which the selection has been made has been enlarged beyond the scope contemplated by the Niyamawali and to the prejudice of the appellant. We have been referred to Rules 7 to 9 in this regard. It seems to us that the contention is without force. During the first selection made under the Tehsildars Niyamawali, there is nothing in the Niyamawali prohibiting the consideration of all the candidates then eligible for selection, in one single process. The argument might have been open to the appellant, although we express no opinion in the matter, had the Tehsildars Niyamawali been in force for some years without any selection being made under it. It is sufficient for its to point out that in a selection made for the first time shortly after the Tehsildars Niyamawali was brought into force the considerations upon which the appellant relies can find no place. 23. It is sufficient for its to point out that in a selection made for the first time shortly after the Tehsildars Niyamawali was brought into force the considerations upon which the appellant relies can find no place. 23. The next grievance is that the selection was made principally on the basis of the Character Rolls, and a number of persons who had worked on the posts of Tehsildar and Deputy Collectors had been ignored. It appears from paragraph 44 of the Counter Affidavit of K. C. Malhotra that the Character Rolls of all the candidates were placed before the Selection Committee and they contained periodical and special remarks touching the various points referred to in Rule 8 of the Tehsildars 'Niyamawali'. It is also averred that besides the Character Rolls information as to the period for which the candidates held their cadre posts in a substantive capacity and the period for which they had continuously held that higher posts of Tehsildars and Deputy Collectors in an officiating or temporary capacity was also placed before the Selection Committee. In addition to this, all the eligible candidates were called for interview before the Selection Committee, and the Selection Committee had occasion to judge the merits of each candidate in order to make the Selection strictly on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Tehsildars Niyamawali. In our opinion, the selection substantially complied with the provisions of Rule 8. 24. It is then urged that the Gradation List contemplated by Rule 9(3) was not prepared and, therefore, full effect was not given to the requirements of that provision. We are of opinion that the omission to prepare the Gradation list has not materially prejudiced the appellant, because when all the candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee the Role played by the Gradation List was reduced to negligible importance. 25. A faint attempt was made to suggest that the Selection Committee acted arbitrarily in making the selection. We are of opinion that there is no clear material before us to indicate that this was so. We, therefore, reject this contention. 26. The result is that except in so far as the sixteen erstwhile Collection Naib Tehsildars have been selected the appellant has failed to establish that the selection made in the year 1966 is invalid. We are of opinion that there is no clear material before us to indicate that this was so. We, therefore, reject this contention. 26. The result is that except in so far as the sixteen erstwhile Collection Naib Tehsildars have been selected the appellant has failed to establish that the selection made in the year 1966 is invalid. Correspondingly, except for the names of the sixteen erstwhile Collection Naib Tehsildars, the list of May 27, 1967 must be considered effective. 27. There now remains the question whether the order of June 28, 1967 reverting the appellant from officiating Tehsildar to this substantive post of Naib Tehsildar is invalid. The case of the appellant is that he has been reverted only because of the impugned selection. On the other hand, it has been averred in paragraphs 37 and 57 of the Counter Affidavit of K. C. Malhotra that the appellant and 12 others were reverted to the officiating post of Tehsildar because of the abolition of eleven temporary posts of Tehsildars, including the post on which the appellant officiated, consequent upon the abolition of the Bhumi Bhawan Kar and because of the return of two officers from deputation with the Consolidation Department. It is stated that no person was permitted to officiate as Tehsildar consequent on the reversion of the appellant and the others under the order of June 28, 1967. The learned single Judge accepted the version contained in the Counter Affidavit and held that the reversion of the appellant was for administrative reasons and was not occasioned by the impugned selection. We find ourselves of the same opinion, and are unable to hold that the order of reversion is invalid. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The selection made in 1966 of candidates to the posts of Tehsildar, including the List of May 27, 1967, is quashed only in so far as sixteen erstwhile Collection Naib Tehsildars have been selected thereby. The appeal is dismissed as regards the order of reversion. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.