( 1 ) THE petitioner is an allottee from the erstwhile Bombay State to the new State of Mysore. When he was serving as a Shanbhogue in Kumta taluk of North Kanara District, he was sought to be retired from service by the State Government in exercise of power reserved to it by Note 1 to rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Service Rules. The said rule occurs in section v of Chapiter XVIII of the MCSRs. dealing with conditions of grant of pension. The rule together with the first note reads as follows:"285. A retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service for thirty years or such less time as may, for any special class of Government servants be prescribed. Note: 1-A Government servant may retire from service any time after completing 30 years' qualifying service provided that he shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the appropriate authority, at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. Government may, by order, retire any Government servant after he has completed twentyfive years of qualifying service or after he has attained fifty years of age, if such retirement is in their opinion necessary in the public interest, provided that the Government servant concerned is given notice of three months before the date of retirement, or in lieu of such notice, a sum equivalent to the amount of his salary for a period of three months. "the contention of the petitioner is that the said rule has the effect of varying one of the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the 1st of November, 1956, to his disadvantage and that because no previous approval of the Central Government had been taken to the said rule the same is invalid and cannot be enforced as against him. ( 2 ) IN support of his contention that the rule varies a condition of his service to his disadvantage, he relies upon the corresponding rule in the bombay Civil Service Rules which were applicable to him immediately before 1-11-1956. ( 2 ) IN support of his contention that the rule varies a condition of his service to his disadvantage, he relies upon the corresponding rule in the bombay Civil Service Rules which were applicable to him immediately before 1-11-1956. The said rule is No. 165a and reads as follows:"a competent authority may remove any Government servant subject to these rules from Government service or may require him to retire from it on the ground of misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency: provided that before any such order is issued, the procedure referred to in Note 1 to Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, discipline and Appeal Rules shall be followed. " ( 3 ) A mere comparison of the two rules is sufficient to uphold the contention that the Mysore Rule undoubtedly varies to the disadvantage of the petitioner one of the important conditions of service, relating to length of service, and retirement, applicable to him under the Bombay rule immediately before 1st November 1956. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that no previous approval of the Central government was taken to this rule. It follows, therefore, that the rule must be held to be invalid as against the petitioner in view of the decision rendered on 15th April 1968 by the Supreme Court in Mohammed bhakar v. Y. Krishna Reddy, CA. 811/68 dt. 19-4-68. At the conclusion of the judgment therein, the Supreme Court observes:"in our opinion, therefore, the Amendment Rules of 1966 can only be given effect to after the approval of the Central Government has been obtained thereto and with consequential directions in respect thereof. " ( 5 ) THERE is also direct authority of the Supreme Court on a similar rule examined in the light of the provisions of Sec. 115 (7) of the States reorganisation Act together with the proviso in the case of Takeehray shivdattray Mankad v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1970 SC 143 where a similar rule was held to be invalid for the same reason. ( 6 ) IT has been argued that, nevertheless, the petitioner m this case is not entitled to take advantage of this legal position. It is argued on behalf of the State that the entire set of rules relating to pension in the mcsrs. ( 6 ) IT has been argued that, nevertheless, the petitioner m this case is not entitled to take advantage of this legal position. It is argued on behalf of the State that the entire set of rules relating to pension in the mcsrs. were permitted to be taken advantage of by the allottees by exercising an option in favour of such adoption and that the petitioner, having actually exercised his option in favour being governed by the said pension rules of MCSRs. , cannot take the advantage of the rules but avoid disadvantage of rule 285, Note 1 which forms part of the entire scheme relating to eligibility, calculation and payment of pension. ( 7 ) WE do not think that the principle of approbate and reprobate which is depended upon in the said argument can apply to the situation here discussed. For the reasons already stated, the rule sought to be enforced by the State Government against the petitioner is invalid and unenforceable as against him for contravention of the express mandate of the proviso appended to sub-sec. (7) of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation act. If the rule is invalid, it must be held that it does not exist at all in the eye of law. The exercise of the option by the petitioner in the manner stated above, cannot take the place of the statutory approval of the central Government expressly required for its validity by the proviso to sub-sec. (7) of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act. Even after the acceptance, what was invalid continues to be invalid and as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the rule invalid as such cannot be given effect to until after approval of the Central Government has been obtained. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order retiring the petitioner compulsorily in the exercise of power of the Government under note 1 to Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Service Rules is quashed. --- *** --- .