NARAYANA PAI, C. J. ( 1 ) THE principal prayer in these two writ petitions which are filed by first division clerks of the Revenue Department of the divisions of Bangalore and Mysore respectively, is that certain circular instructions issued by the State Government under No. RD 205 BSC 67 dated 2-9-1967 should be quashed as illegal and proceeding upon a misunderstanding of the ruling of this Court in W. P. 2335/63 (Kadegowda v. State of Mysore and others) decided on 31-8-1965. If the disputes touching the said prayer are dealt with and disposed of, other questions and contentions raised which are all in the nature of arguments in support of the main prayer will cease to be of any interest. ( 2 ) THE back-ground of facts leading to the presentation of these writ petitions is briefly as follows :- in the erstwhile State of Mysore, employees in the Revenue Department were placed in two different categories, ministerial branch attending to office work only, and the executive branch which attended to what may be described as 'field work' also. According to the rules then prevalent in the ministerial branch a person who started service as a second division clerk, after confirmation and promotion to the cadre of first division clerk, would be eligible for promotion as Taluk Sheristedar; a second division clerk transferred to the executive branch besides getting himself confirmed as second division clerk had to be confirmed once again as second grade revenue Inspector and then promoted as first grade Revenue Inspector and thereafter as Taluk Sheristedar. This necessity for two confirmations at the lowest position led to a certain timelag in the transferees to the execution branch earning promotion to the position of Taluk Sheristedar. ( 3 ) ONE of the persons who suffered this disadvantage and saw his quondam associates in the ministerial branch getting promoted, though junior to himself, presented a writ petition No. 2335/1963 referred to above. ( 3 ) ONE of the persons who suffered this disadvantage and saw his quondam associates in the ministerial branch getting promoted, though junior to himself, presented a writ petition No. 2335/1963 referred to above. ( 4 ) THE immediate occasion for presenting the writ petition was that by a certain order made on 27-1-1962 the State Government created seven new posts of first division clerks in the Bangalore Division and directed the promotion of certain persons thereto with retrospective effect as from 1-1-1947 Among the persons so promoted were three persons, by name, chandramouli, Sreekartappa and Domingo, (respondents 2, 3 and 4 in w. P. 2335/63) who were junior to Kadegowda the petitioner herein. He claimed that he should have been promoted with effect from 1-1-1947 as first division clerk. The State Government did not file any counter affidavit in the said case. The other respondents who were promoted contended that kadegowda should not be promoted for the reason that at the relevant moment he was holding the position of a Revenue Inspector and not of a clerk in the ministerial branch. The petitioner Kadegowda's answer thereto is summarised as follows in the order of the Court. "the case for the petitioner is that he had his permanent lien in the Ministerial Branch. But the Government had deputed him to work as Revenue Inspector. The fact that he was working as a revenue Inspector at the relevant time, cannot adversely affect the right of the petitioner. "it is on the said claim of the petitioner, which was not controverted by any counter affidavit and in the absence of any statement by the Government of circumstances disqualifying or disentitling the petitioner from being promoted, that the Court came to make a direction to promote Kadegowda as first division clerk from 1-1-1947 and to place him above respondents 3 and 4 in the said writ petition. ( 5 ) IN the circular instructions of 2-P-1967 impugned in the present writ petitions the State Government referred to the derision in Kadegowda's case as laying down a certain principle. The opinion so entertained by the Government and expressed in the said letter is as follows :-"the High Court of Mysore in WP. ( 5 ) IN the circular instructions of 2-P-1967 impugned in the present writ petitions the State Government referred to the derision in Kadegowda's case as laying down a certain principle. The opinion so entertained by the Government and expressed in the said letter is as follows :-"the High Court of Mysore in WP. No. 2335/63 Kade Gowda v. State, has held that when the official had his permanent Hen in the clerical cadre the fact that he was working as Revenue Inspector at the relevant time cannot adversely affect his right for promotion. Accordingly the seniority of Sri Kadegowda was restored over his juniors who were promoted earlier as he was working as Revenue inspector at the relevant time of his promotion holding his permanent lien in II Division clerical Cadre. "the letter further states that after examining the question carefully the government have decided to apply the principle in the decision to cases of all officials whose seniority has been overlooked on the ground that they were working as Revenue Inspectors at the relevant time subject to the condition that they would not make any claim for arrears of pay, re-fixation of pay or other financial benefits. ( 6 ) THE first question for consideration is whether the Government are at all right in extracting from the decision in Kadegowda's case any principle of general application. In the first place it will be noticed that the contrvoersy raised in the case was limited to Kadegowda and the three respondents impleaded by him as having been wrongly promoted although they were juniors to him. The State Government did not file any counter-affidavit. It had not placed before the Court the exact position prevailing in old Mysore State, particularly the categorisation of officials of the Revenue Department into those in ministerial branch and those in executive Branch. The Court was also not apprised of the fact that in the ministerial branch the cadre of first division clerks was fed not merely by promotion but by direct recruitment also with a prescribed proportion or percentage. It was also not brought to the notice of the Court that even the promotional post of Taluk Sheristedar was filled partly from the ministerial branch and partly from the executive branch in a certain prescribed proportion. It was also not brought to the notice of the Court that even the promotional post of Taluk Sheristedar was filled partly from the ministerial branch and partly from the executive branch in a certain prescribed proportion. ( 7 ) THE case of Kadegowda as summarised in the judgment of this court in W. P. 2335/63 apparently proceeded upon the application ol regulation 104 of the Mysore Civil Services Regulations. The application of the said rule, it is undoubted, is limited to a single promotion being made proforma in a department or a section when the person who in the normal course should have been promoted therein is not available by reason of his having been deputed to work elsewhere. It is not contended that the said rule can be availed of to make larger number of promotions than the number of promotional posts available to be filled up. ( 8 ) THE second aspect of the question mentioned above has been clarified by another judgment of this court in P. H. Hosallappa v. State of Mysore (W. P. 2293/67) decided on 25/28-8-1969. In the said order the position is set out as follows: -"it is clear to us from the material placed before us and the report received from the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division dated 24th February 1969 that between 1951 and 1958 there were only 21 vacancies of I Division Clerks available for promotion. If that were so, the Government should have reviewed the promotions of 15 officials who had been already promoted and if after applying the rules regulating promotions that were in vogue prior to the reorganisation of states, it was found that some of them had been wrongly promoted, persons so wrongly promoted should have been reverted and persons eligible for promotion under the rules applicable should have been promoted in their places, so as to make the total number of promotions equal to the vacancies actually in existence up to that date. " ( 9 ) NOW under the circular instructions impugned in these writ petitions a review of the position and restoration of seniority as is stated therein is bound to result in larger number of persons being treated as having been promoted as first division clerks than the number of vacancies in the cadre of first division clerks actually available for being filled by promotion. Such a result cannot be regarded as either lawful or in accordance with the rules relating to recruitment to services and the fixation of strength of cadres. ( 10 ) THERE are thus two good reasons why the circular instructions impugned in these writ petitions cannot be permitted to stand namely, (1) the decision in Kadegowda's case should be limited to the facts brought before the Court on which the decision was made and to the persons who were actually impleaded as parties thereto, and there is no scope whatever to extract from it a principle of general application to the revenue department wherein the position clearly ascertainable from the rules prevalent in the erstwhile State of Mysore is that there were two branches in which the promotional posts were dealt with in two different ways and (2) it is not permissible to promote more men than there are vacancies in promotional posts available for being filled up. ( 11 ) IT has been argued on behalf of some of the respondents that their seniority had been restored according to the above circular instructions and that upon writ petitions being presented by them to this Court, the Government have been directed to extend to them the financial benefits which were denied to them under the circular instructions and that at any rate, so far as such persons are concerned, there is no scope for quashing or setting aside the circular instructions. We do not think that the argument is sustainable. The right or wrong of the restoration of seniority was not brought up before the Court in those writ petitions. What was questioned before the Court was the propriety of refusing financial of other consequential benefits when once seniority was restored. No doubt the writ petitions were originally framed for securing restoration of seniority and consequential promotion, but because the circular instruetions were issued during the pendency of the writ petitions, the Government themselves restored the seniority. It is thus clear that the restoration of the seniority was not pursuant to any order of this court expressing any opinion on the circular instruction now impugned. We see therefore, no difficulty in quashing the circular instructions. ( 12 ) WE therefore, make a common order in both these writ petitions quashing the circular instructions of the State Government bearing No. ED 205 BSC 67 dated 2-9-67/6-8-1967. --- *** --- .