NARAYANA PAI, C. J. ( 1 ) ON the 1st of November 1966, the petitioners in these eleven writ petitions held substantive position of Assistant Conservators of. Forests in the erstwhile State of Mysore and stood allotted as such to the new State of Mysore under S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act. They challenge the equation of posts made for the purpose or the final Inter-State Seniority list of Gazetted Officers in the Forest Department and published in the mysore Gazette Extraordinary dated the 9th of May 1969, particularly the rejection of their case for equation of their posts with those of Deputy conservator of Forests of the erstwhile States of Bombay and Hyderabad and their inclusion in category IV along with Sub-Assistant Conservators of Forests of the erstwhile State of Mysore. ( 2 ) THIS litigation has had a fairly long history and a reference to the salient features thereof is necessary for a disposal of the present writ petitions. ( 3 ) THE Provisional Inter-State Seniority list was published by the state Government in 1957 by notification dated 26th March 1957. In the said list the equations were as follows: (I) Conservator of Forests, Mysore. Conservator of Forests, Bombay. (II) Senior Assistant Conservator of Forests, Mysore, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Mysore, Assistant Conservator, Madras, Deputy Conservator, bombay, Deputy Conservator, Hyderabad, Assistant Conservator, hyderabad and Deputy Conservator, Coorg. (III) Sub-Assistant Conservator, Mysore, Assistant Conservator, Bombay, officiating Assistant Conservator, Hyderabad, Probationer, Madras and probationer, Mysore. ( 4 ) THE said equations were considered by the Central Advisory committee functioning under S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act at its meeting held in September 1963, They recommended a variation in equations as follows: (I) Chief Conservator of Forests, Mysore (Rs. 1000-1200 ). (II) Conservator of. Forests, Mysore (Rs. 700-900) (III) Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bombay (Rs. 350-1100) deputy Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad (Rs. 600-1000) senior Assistant Conservator of Forests, Mysore (Rs. 500-600 ). (IV) Assistant Conservator of Forests, Mysore (Rs. 300-500) assistant Conservator of Forests, Madras (Rs. 300-700) assistant Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad (Rs. 300-600) assistant Conservator of Forests, Bombay (Rs. 220-650) deputy Conservator of Forests, Coorg (Rs. 300-700) sub Assistant Conservator of Forests, Mysore (Rs. 175-250 ). 600-1000) senior Assistant Conservator of Forests, Mysore (Rs. 500-600 ). (IV) Assistant Conservator of Forests, Mysore (Rs. 300-500) assistant Conservator of Forests, Madras (Rs. 300-700) assistant Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad (Rs. 300-600) assistant Conservator of Forests, Bombay (Rs. 220-650) deputy Conservator of Forests, Coorg (Rs. 300-700) sub Assistant Conservator of Forests, Mysore (Rs. 175-250 ). The Government of India the integrating authority under S. I 15 of the states Reorganisation Act accepted these revised equations recommended by the Central Advisory Committee and the Finai lnte.-State Seniority list prepared accordingly was published in Notification dated 2nd May 1964 in the Mysore Gazette dated 21-5-1964. ( 5 ) THE said final list was impugned by the petitioners in WP. 2186 of 1963 and others. The judgment of this Court in the said writ petitions is reported in G. M. Shankariah v. Union of India, (1965) 2 Mys. L. J. 40, During the course of hearing of those petitions, the Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the Union of India represented that the list though called final list was merely in the nature of a proposal and that it was still open to the petitioners to make representations, if any, in respect of the same. Accepting the said submission, this Court refused to quash the list but directed the central Government to give the petitioners an opportunity to make representations against the equation of posts proposed, to consider their objections with the aid of the Advisory Committee and thereafter to arrive at a final decision as regards the integration in dispute. ( 6 ) IN the said judgment, this Court had made certain observations to the effect that the power of integration of the Central Government was in the nature of quasi judicial power and that such nature thereof attracted certain responsibilities. ( 7 ) THE Union of India appealed against the order of this Court in c. A. Nos. 1439 and 1446 of 1967 before the Supreme Court of India. The said appeals were disposed of on the 16th October 1968. The supreme Court noticed the concession or submission made by the Attorney General and observed that as the impugned list or decision itself was a provisional and not a final one, the only thing that remained for the high Court to do was to dismiss the writ petitions. The said appeals were disposed of on the 16th October 1968. The supreme Court noticed the concession or submission made by the Attorney General and observed that as the impugned list or decision itself was a provisional and not a final one, the only thing that remained for the high Court to do was to dismiss the writ petitions. However, Counsel on behalf of both the parties having agreed before the Court that the ultimate directions given by this Court had been given only at the instance of the petitioners and for purposes of clarification, no legal difficulty would arise as a result of the said directions. Hence without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the several observations made in the judgment of this Court, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal as follows: ;"in disposing in these appeals, we should not be understood to have expressed any opinion one way or the other on these questions as in our view in what has happened none of these questions for the time being arises. Mr. Desai agreed that in view of our confirming the high Court's decision that the impugned decision was only provisional as contended before the High Court on behalf of the Union, the government of India will receive and consider the representations, if any, made by the petitioners in the aforesaid ten writ petitions, with the assistance of an Advisory Committee which the Government will constitute as provided by S. 115 (5) and will expeditiously arrive at its final decision in accordance with law. It was also agreed both by mr. Desai and Mr. Nambiar that the aforesaid petitioners will, if they so desire, make their representations within one month from the date of this decision and the Central Government will arrive at its final decision after considering them within six months from the date of receipt by it of those representations. For the reasons aforesaid we dismiss both the appeals, but in the circumstances of the case we think it fair that there should be no order as to costs. " ( 8 ) SUBSEQUENTLY pursuant to the said decision, the petitioners and several others made representations. For the reasons aforesaid we dismiss both the appeals, but in the circumstances of the case we think it fair that there should be no order as to costs. " ( 8 ) SUBSEQUENTLY pursuant to the said decision, the petitioners and several others made representations. The Central Government after consulting the Central advisory Committee again published the final Inter- state Seniority List on the 9th of May 1969 referred to above, repeating the same equations as had been previously adopted by it. It is this list and the equations therein that are once again challenged in these writ petitions as aforesaid. ( 9 ) THE extent and limits of judicial review in cases of this nature have been discussed and enunciated by this Court in the case of Dharmaraj kamagiriyappa Badyankal v. Union of India, (1970) 2 Mys. L. J. 184. after referring to and discussing the previous decisions of this Court in the cases of g. B. Mudam badithaya v. Union, of India, AIR. 1969 Mys. 362 and B. Venkatachalachar v. Union of India, (1970) 1 Mys. L. J. 222. It is common ground that the judicial review asked for in these cases also is governed by the principles enunciated in the said case of dharmaraj Kamagiriyappa (1 ). However, certain further questions or contentions have also been raised described as supplementary to and not derogatory of any of the principles stated in the case of Dharmaraj kamagiriyappa (2 ). Briefly stated those additional contentions are that the power of the Central Government to bring about integration of services under S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act is in the nature of a quasi judicial power and that the proper exercise of that power necessarily involves right of every person affected or likely to be affected by the exercise of that power to an opportunity of being heard. ( 10 ) THE first four sub-sections of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation act deal with the topic of allotment of Government servants in the course of reorganisation of States. Sub-sec. ( 10 ) THE first four sub-sections of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation act deal with the topic of allotment of Government servants in the course of reorganisation of States. Sub-sec. (5) dealing specifically with the question of integration of services reads as follows:" The Central Government may by order establish one or more advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard to- (a) the division and integration of the services among the new states and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Madras; and (b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of this section and the proper consideration of any representations made by such persons. " ( 11 ) FOR settling the preliminary details in relation to the work of integrating services the Central Government convened a meeting of the chief Secretaries of the various States as early as in May 1956. Among other things, one of the matters agreed upon was the principles on which equations of posts should be arrived at. It was agwreed that in determining the equation of posts the following factors should be borne in mind: (1) The nature and duties of a post; (2) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the Officers holding a post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (3) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; (4) The salary of the post. ( 12 ) BY a notification issued in May 1958, the Government of India constituted a Centra] Advisory Committee under sub-sec. (5) of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act for the purpose of assisting it in dealing with the problems of integration. ( 12 ) BY a notification issued in May 1958, the Government of India constituted a Centra] Advisory Committee under sub-sec. (5) of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act for the purpose of assisting it in dealing with the problems of integration. The functions of the Committee were: (i) To advise the Central Government in regard to the division and integration of members of the gazetted cadres of the State services among the new State and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Madras; and (ii) to make recommendations to the Central Government with a view to ensure that fair and equitable treatment is given to the service personnel belonging to the gazetted cadres of the State services who are affected by the States Reorganisation and to consider representations submitted by then ( 13 ) THE procedure to be followed was also formulated by the Central Government and conveyed to the State Governments by means of a letter dated the 11th of November 1959. The procedure therein set out was: -" (1) The State Government should publish the final common gradation list in its Official Gazette following the prescribed procedure; (2) The State Government will prefix to the notification publishing a common gradation list, a preamble on the lines, drafted by the Central government; (3) The State Government was to be satisfied; (a) that the provisional gradation list was prepared after following the principles laid down by the Central Government; (b) that it was published in the Official Gazette; (c) that an opportunity was afforded to the service personnel to make representations: (d) that the representations, if any, had been decided by the Central Government in consultation with the Central Advisory Committee; and (e j that the decisions of the Central Government were -correctly incorporated in the final common gradation list. ", ( 14 ) THE details. of this procedure are set out in the judgment of the supreme Court in. the case of Union of India v. P K Roy, AIR. ", ( 14 ) THE details. of this procedure are set out in the judgment of the supreme Court in. the case of Union of India v. P K Roy, AIR. 1968 SC 850 and after observing that the work of integration requires the formulation of principles on which the work has to be carried out, the actual preparation of preliminary gradation lists in accordance with the principles so settled, the publication of the lists together with the principles upon which they have been compiled, the invitation of representations by the persons affected thereby, the consideration of representations and decisions upon those representations, and the publication of the final gradation list incorporating the decisions of the Central Government on the representations submitted, the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the procedure prescribed above does not contravene the provisions of sub-sec. (5) of s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act. With reference to the particular facts of the case itself, they point out that the procedure therein taken was correct and in accordance with the said section because it was the Central government which laid down the principles for integration, it was the central Government which considered the representations and passed final orders and both the preliminary and final gradation lists were prepared and published by the State Government under the direction and with the sanction of the Central Government. ( 15 ) IT was, however, noticed in the said case that some of the persons affected had their position varied to their detriment in the final gradation list in regard to which they had no opportunity of making representations. The Supreme Court, therefore, directed that such persons should be given an opportunity to make their representations in regard to such variation. ( 16 ) BEFORE proceeding to discuss the contentions, it will be useful and clear several misapprehensions if it is pointed out even now that the submission made on behalf of the Union Government by the Attorney General in Shankariah's case (1) was actually in accordance with the principles stated by the Supreme Court later in the case of P. K. Roy (5 ). What had happened was that the position assigned to the petitioners in the provisional inter State Seniority List had been varied to their deriment in the so called final Inter state Seniority List without their having had an opportunity to make representations in that regard. What had happened was that the position assigned to the petitioners in the provisional inter State Seniority List had been varied to their deriment in the so called final Inter state Seniority List without their having had an opportunity to make representations in that regard. If the Government had taken up the attitude that the list was final list the proper order to pass would have been to quash the list and direct the Govt. to re-do the same after giving an opportunity to the persons affected to make a representation in regard to the equation proposed therein. As. however, the Government took up the position that it was only a provisional or tentative determination or re-determination of equations, the list would be only a reviser! provisions! inter State Senioritv list and the form in which the revision is set out would make the opportunity of making representations more effcctive by giving a clear indication to the parties concerned how and in "what manner they were going to be affected thereby. ( 17 ) WE have made this detailed reference to the judgement of the supreme Court in Roy's case (5), because it has a direct bering on the claim now strongly pressed before us that sub-sec. (5) of S. 115 of the states Reorganisation Act by necessary intendment confers upon persons affected a right of being heard. The language of the sub-section which we have already copied, does not in terms confer any such right The supreme Court, while discussing in detail the procedure evo!ved by the central Government for purposes of completing integration of services under the sub-section, has expressed the clear opinion that the said procedure is quite in accord with the provisions of the said sub-section. The procedure itself so accepted by the Supreme Court does not make any , provision for a hearing. The judgment of the Supreme Court also does not contain the slightest indication that the right of hearing can at all be claimed. The judgment of this Court reported in Shankariah v. Union of India (l), rendered upon previous petitions presented by the present parties themselves, has given clear directions for representations to be made by the petitioners and considered by the Central Government with the aid: of the Advisory Committee. The express directions of the Supreme: Court also upon appeal are to the same effect. The directions at the end of. The express directions of the Supreme: Court also upon appeal are to the same effect. The directions at the end of. the judgment of this Court made after making the observation that the function was quasi judicial in nature emphasise the position that inspite of such being the nature of the power, the right of hearing was not necessary for a valid exercise of the same. The Supreme Court in its judgment in Roy's case (5) limited the right to making representations and did not extend it to a hearing and observed that the extent and application 'of the doctrine of natural justice are not to be imprisoned within the strait jacket of a rigid formula, but that its application depends upon the nature of jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon the character of rights of the persons affected, the scheme and policy of the statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in a particular case. It is with these principles in mind that their Lordships expressed the clear opinion that the procedure evolved by the Central Government (which did not provide for any hearing was completely in accord with S. 115 of the states Reorganisation Act. The judgment necessarily means that the said procedure does not involve any disobedience of any of the rules of natural justice applicable to the situation. ( 18 ) RELIANCE was, however, placed on two other rulings of the Supreme Court in Travancore Rayons v. Union of India , AIR. 1971 SC. 862 and Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash, AIR. 1971 SC 1093 the effect of which seems to be that it may foe desirable to give a hearing in complicated cases though it may not be obligatory to do so. But the proposition of law clearly stated in the second of the cases is : " In a proceeding of judicial nature, the basic rules of natural justice must be followed. The respondent was on that account entitled to make a representation. But it is not necessarily an incident of the rules of natural justice that personal hearing must be given to a party likely to be affected by the order. Except in proceedings in courts, a mere denial of opportunity of making an oral representation will not, without more, vitiate the proceeding. But it is not necessarily an incident of the rules of natural justice that personal hearing must be given to a party likely to be affected by the order. Except in proceedings in courts, a mere denial of opportunity of making an oral representation will not, without more, vitiate the proceeding. " ( 19 ) ALTHOUGH what is stated above makes a further discussion on this point unnecessary, we might observe that there is not, in the nature of things', any compelling necessity to give a personal hearing under S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act. The principles already stated are first to equate the posts and next to count the length of service. . The basic principles for equation have also been clearly stated (which we have already copied ). The material necesspry for the application of those principles is obviously available in its entirety in the records of the Governments of integrating States, in the shape of recruitment rules, rules or notifications for departmentalisation of work, investment and delegation of powers, etc. There is nothing of material value which a party may add to it by way of oral hearing. Whatever he may have to say can fully be stated in written representations which he is permitted to make. ( 20 ) WE are unable to see anything special or of peculiar difficulty in these cases so as to be incapable of understanding or solution without an oral hearing. ( 21 ) WE therefore hold that it is not necessary for the validity of an inter-State seniority list that the parties affected should have been given a hearing by the integrating authority, the Central Government. ( 22 ) THE next point for consideration is whether there is scope for judicial review in the light of the principles stated by this Court in the case of Dharmaraj (2 ). ( 22 ) THE next point for consideration is whether there is scope for judicial review in the light of the principles stated by this Court in the case of Dharmaraj (2 ). ( 23 ) WHAT is pointed out in the said case is that the scope of judicial review in writ petitions questioning or challenging the equations made under S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act is to see whether the Central government has borne in mind the four principles stated for arriving at the equations, whether all those principles have in fact been applied in arriving at the impugned equations, whether the equations have been arrived at by applying one or some only of the said principles to the exclusion of others, and lastly whether any extraneous or irrelevant considerations have been taken into account. It has also been pointed out that the answer to these questions is to be ascertained by. perusing the proceedings of the Advisory Committee on the basis of which the Central Government makes the equations, as well as the Central Government's decision on the question. ( 24 ) THE ultimate decision of the Central Government accepting the recommendations of the Advisory Committee reads:"the Government of India have carefully considered the representations received from the Officers of the Forest Department of Mysore in pursuance to the directions of the Supreme Court, the comments of the State Government on the representations and the recommendations of the Central Advisory Committee in this regard. Taking into consideration the nature and duties of the posts from various integrating areas, the responsibilities and powers exercised by the Officers holding the posts, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged by the Officers, the minimum qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the posts, the salary of the posts, the hierarchy of posts, in the integrating regions and all other relevant aspects of the matter, the Central Government have decided that there are no sufficient grounds to justify a change in the equation of posts already decided by them earlier in consultation with the central Advisory Committee. It has therefore been decided that the following equation of posts, as decided earlier, may be adopted for drawing up the final inter-State Seniority list of the Gazetted Officers of the Forest Department. "then follow the equations which we have already copied. It has therefore been decided that the following equation of posts, as decided earlier, may be adopted for drawing up the final inter-State Seniority list of the Gazetted Officers of the Forest Department. "then follow the equations which we have already copied. ( 25 ) THE proceedings containing the discussion of the matter and statement of opinion by the Advisory Committee are a detailed document where the substance of the previous litigation, the representations made by the affected parties and the comments of the State Government are set out and discussed. The discussion gives the clearest impression that the committee has considered all available material in the light of the four principles relevant for evolving equations of posts. It is seen that the position in different integrating areas, the nature of the territorial charges held, the nature of the powers delegated to subordinate officers in different integrating areas have all been fully adverted to and the difficulties arising out of the different patterns in different integrating areas stated and discussed. The Committee's discussion clearly indicates that the petitioners as well as the State Government of Mysore were laying great emphasis on one matter to the extent of even excluding the operation of one or more of the principles stated for integration. The approach made by the Advisory Committee to the problem is found stated in paragraph 17 of the Report as 'follows:"because of the varying conditions which obtained in the respective regions, equations had to be evolved on the basis of an overall consideration in the light of the principles laid down. No one principle could be applied. Taking all factors into consideration and the comparative status of the posts in the respective regions, the Committee had recommended that the posts of Deputy Conservators of Bombay and Hyderabad and Senior Assistant Conservator of Mysore should be equated in a higher category than the Assistant Conservator of other regions and other lower posts. " ( 26 ) ON the material as summarised above, scarcely anything can be said in support of a case for interference in the light of the scope of judicial review set out in Dharmaraja's case (2 ). " ( 26 ) ON the material as summarised above, scarcely anything can be said in support of a case for interference in the light of the scope of judicial review set out in Dharmaraja's case (2 ). It has, however, been argued that whereas this Court has pointed out that only the four principles for equation of posts could properly be applied, something more has been done in these cases, which is clearly in the nature of an irrelevancy. Reference is to the fact that some value has been given to the hierarchy of posts and to what is described as 'all other relevant aspects'. But, we fail to see how hierarchy of posts in different integrating areas can be regarded as a matter falling completely beyond the scope of the four principles. It would certainly have a bearing either on the nature of the posts or on the responsibilities attaching to the posts. Merely because the Government of India uses the expression 'all other relevant aspects', one cannot jump to the conclusion that anything, which does not fall within the scope of the four principles, has been permitted to operate. ( 27 ) SUCH being the position, we do not think that it is correct or proper to go into a detailed discussion of the arguments addressed before us on the question of how the principles apply to the facts of these cases. The entire attempt in the course of the arguments was to prove or try to prove that if the principles had been applied in another manner or, more accurately, if the facts had been related to the principles in a different manner, the equations as suggested by the petitioners could have been arrived at. That would, indeed, be equal to hearing an appeal on facts and not a writ petition, in which the scope of judicial review is limited as already indicated. Further, even the very basis of the argument that two views are reasonably possible on the same material is itself argument enough to hold that the view which has in fact been taken by the authority having jurisdiction cannot be rejected as wrong. ( 28 ) APART from these matters bearing upon the legality of the equation or the valid exercise of the powers of evolving equations, two other arguments have also been addressed. ( 28 ) APART from these matters bearing upon the legality of the equation or the valid exercise of the powers of evolving equations, two other arguments have also been addressed. ( 29 ) THE first of them does not merit much consideration. That argument is that under S. 116 of the States Reorganisation Act, the petitioners must be deemed to continue to hold the posts they were holding before the integration and that they have been reduced in rank by virtue of these equations and their service conditions varied to their 'detriment in contravention of the proviso appended to sub-sec. (7) of S. 115 of the States reorganisation Act. If indeed it is a variation of service condition, it is a variation not merely with the approval of the Central Government but by the Central Government itself. No question therefore arises of any variation in contravention of the proviso to sub-sec. (7) of S. 115. Action here taken is not by the State Government. It is also difficult to understand how where equation of posts has been validly made, any one could say that he has been reduced in rank. The very fact that the equation is valid means that he is equated to a person who is equal to him. ( 30 ) THE second argument is that there has been in these cases violation "of the equality guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is said that whereas in Andhra Pradesh Assistant Conservators originally from Madras State and working in Andhra State constituted under the andhra State Act, have been equated with Deputy Conservators allotted from the State of Hyderabad, a different equation has been evolved in the new State of Mysore. The basis of the argument is that the Assistant conservators of Mysore who are equated to Assistant Conservators of madras must be regarded as equal to Deputy Conservators from hyderabad, with whom the Assistant Conservators of Madras have been equated in Andhra State. There are more difficulties than one in the way of even accepting the suggestion so made. In the first place, there is no material to show that the Assistant Conservators of Madras who got allotted to andhra State under the Andhra State Act, had everything in common with the Assistant Conservators of Madras who became allotted to the new state of Mysore. In the first place, there is no material to show that the Assistant Conservators of Madras who got allotted to andhra State under the Andhra State Act, had everything in common with the Assistant Conservators of Madras who became allotted to the new state of Mysore. Secondly, whereas in Andhra Pradesh equations of posts have been made only in three categories,, in the State of Mysore it has become necessary to have four categories. Thirdly, whereas in Andhra pradesh the integration was as between the territories of two States or at the most three, in Mysore the integrating areas are carved out from five different States, Mysore, Madras, Hyderabad, Bombay and Coorg. With, all these differences, each one of which is sufficient to destroy the suggestion of alleged equality, we find it difficult to see how any clear case of violation of Arts. 14 and 16 can be suggested, much less made out. ( 31 ) ANOTHER suggestion under the same head is that, whereas in the revenue Department of the Mysore State, Senior Assistant Commissioners and ordinary Assistant Commissioners have been put in one category, in the Forest Department Senior Assistant Conservators and Assistant Conservators have been put in two different categories. The answer is that the departments are different and also that in the erstwhile State of Mysore, the Senior Assistant Conservators used to be put in charge of what are called the major divisions. ( 32 ) AS the petitioners themselves have not made out even a prima facie case of contravention of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, they can derive no sustenance from the fact that the Central Government has not filed a counter-affidavit. ( 33 ) THE charge of discrimination therefore fails. ( 34 ) THIS disposes of all the contentions raised in these Writ petitions. ( 35 ) BUT in the course of the hearing, Shankariah, the petitioner in wp. 1864 of 1969, has filed an application praying that the Court 'may be pleased to take into consideration the facts contained in the Central government's letter, a copy whereof has been produced with the application. A copy thereof is found in one of the Secretariat Files placed before us by the State Government. 1864 of 1969, has filed an application praying that the Court 'may be pleased to take into consideration the facts contained in the Central government's letter, a copy whereof has been produced with the application. A copy thereof is found in one of the Secretariat Files placed before us by the State Government. The original appears to have been addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, to the Secretary, Central Advisory Committee, Union public Service Commission, New Delhi. Copy in the Government's File is the one forwarded to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of mysore in the General Administration Department (Integration), and received on 28th October 1969. The letter, after referring to the publication of the Final Inter State Seniority list on 9th May 1969, states that the question of equations has since been reconsidered by the Government of india on a representation submitted by some Members of Parliament and that it has been decided in consultation with the Chairman, Central advisory Committee, that the matter may be reconsidered by the Committee and as fax as possible, the officers who are affected by the Inter State Seniority list may be given a personal hearing. ( 36 ) WHEN this matter was first mentioned by Mr. S. K. Venkataranga iyengar after some considerable argument, we observed that the same was not a material which we could properly consider in these cases, and that so far as his client was concerned it was open to him either to take a decision after hearing by this Court or to take his chance before the central Government if he so chooses. He did not withdraw the petition but proceeded with the arguments. This application was filed after another day of argument, which in effect is a written request to do which we have refused to do on an oral request. He did not withdraw the petition but proceeded with the arguments. This application was filed after another day of argument, which in effect is a written request to do which we have refused to do on an oral request. But as he has chosen to file this application, we dispose of it by holding that so far as the offer of hearing is concerned, the same cannot be in recognition of any right of the petitioner being heard and that so far as the suggested reconsideration of equations by the Central Government is concerned, the same is without jurisdiction, because with the publication of the Final Inter-State Seniority list the executive power specially conferred upon the Central Government by S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act to bring about integration of services gets exhausted and the Central Government becomes functus officio and thereafter it could act only under and in accordance with the order, if one is made, by a competent Court with reference to the final list. For the reasons already stated, we dismiss all these eleven writ Petitions. --- *** --- .