NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an Assistant Octroi Superintendent on the staff of the Bangalore City Municipal Corporation. The third respondent is a reporter (promoted from the position of Stenographer) on the staff of the same Corporation. ( 2 ) BY an order made on 7th August 1971, the Commissioner of the corporation determined that the 3rd respondent would be the person entitled to be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Revenue Officers according to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, for the first time brought into force from 3rd March 1971, on which date the Government accorded approval to the draft prepared by the Corporation. The said order of the commissioner mentions that the proposal for the said promotion is sub-ject to the final approval of the Corporation; hence he ordered that the 3rd respondent be placed in independent charge of a post of the Assistant revenue Officer. ( 3 ) THE petitioner assails the correctness of the said order of the commissioner and contends that on a proper interpretation of the relevant provision of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, he should have been selected for promotion to the position of Assistant Revenue Officer. ( 4 ) ALTHOUGH certain minor points regarding the approval of the corporation for the appointment and the necessity to consult the Public service Commission before framing the Rules were raised by Mr. U. L. Narayana Rao for the petitioner, he did no press the same for the reason that the impugned order itself expressly the necessity for approval by the Corporation and the statement thai the Public Service Commission had been consulted could not be controvered by him. ( 5 ) THE only point therefore which remains for consideration is the interpretation of the relevant Entry in the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Bangalore Corporation. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the said Entry, recruitment to the position of Assistant revenue Officers is to be made "by promotion from among the Assistant octroi Superintendents, Section Managers and Reporters in the ratio of 4:2:1 respectively. " As the Commissioner appears to have felt some difficulty in interpreting the said Entry, he is said to have sought clarification from the State Government, after receipt of which he proceeded to make the impugned order in the light of the clarification. " As the Commissioner appears to have felt some difficulty in interpreting the said Entry, he is said to have sought clarification from the State Government, after receipt of which he proceeded to make the impugned order in the light of the clarification. As appears from the order, what the Commissioner has done is to pick out four seniormost assistant Octroi Superintendents two Seniormost Section Managers and one Seniormost Reporter and then prepare a combined seniority list of the said seven persons, counted in respect of their officiation in the cadre of assistant Octroi Superintendents, Section Managers or Reporter, as the case may be. In the said list, the 3rd respondent's name stands at Serial no. 1 and that of the petitioner at Serial No. 2. ( 7 ) MR. S. V. Subramanyam appearing for the Corporation stated that for the purpose of making promotion to the cadre of Assistant Revenue officers, there will always be maintained a list of seven persons made up of four seniormost Assistant Octroi Superintendents, two Section Managers and one Reporter, arranged in order of seniority as between them, and that the same will be considered as the pool from which promotions have to be made to the cadre of Assistant Revenue Officers, and that it is believed that the same would be in 'compliance with the terms of the relevant Entry. ( 8 ) THE said view is supported by Mr. B. G. Sridharan appearing for the 3rd respondent. ( 9 ) MR. Narayana Rao for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that seniority for purposes of promotion has to be reckoned among the persons eligible on the length of continuous officiation in their respective cadres under the Corporation service as clearly stated in the order of the state Government dated 3rd March 1071 according previous approval to the Rules and with special reference to the Entry now in question as well as another Entry of a similar nature and that therefore the preparation of a combined seniority list of eligible persons as has been done in the imputed order of the Commissioner is opposed to the said specific instruction of the Government which must be deemed to be part of the rules. He further states that the order in which the different sources for promotion are stated in the Entry is it self indicative of the order in which vacancies occuring after the promulgation of the Rules should be filled. In other words, his contention is that this is s case of what is called the rotational system of promotion, comprising both the idea of a certain relative proportion in which premotional vacancies are to be distributed among the three sources and the idea of revive seniority of promoters in the promotional cadre. ( 10 ) THE question is which of there wo views is correct. ( 11 ) REFERENCE has been made to two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz Mervm Contirbo v. Collector of Customs. Bombay, AIR. 1967 SC. 52, Jaisinhani v. Union of India, AIR. 1967 SC. 1427. , and to three decisions of this Court, viz. , one reported in D. P. Hiremutt v. State of Musore, (1971) 1 Mys. L. J. 216. and two unreborted decisions, viz. , in K. S. Nadaaouda v. State of Mysored, WP. 2133/68, disposed of on 2nd December 1970 and in Shinaliaappa v. State of Mysore, WP. 3978/68. disposed of on 14th april 1971. ( 12 ) IT is conceded, however, on all hands that though these decisions deal with the principles and considerations bearing upon what is generally identified by the expression svatem of Promotions none of the decisions is in itself sufficient to decide this case. ( 13 ) IT will be enough therefore first to summarise the principles which could be gathered from these derisions. ( 14 ) IN the two miling of the Supreme Coort recruitment to a certain class of public service was required by relevant rules to be made partly by direct recruitment and partly by promotion from a lower cadre. There were also other rules or circulars of the Government having the force of rules which in addition to prescribing the relative proportion between direct recruits and promotees, also prescribed tho manner in which the relative seniority as between them should be fixed in the promotional cadro. Such was also the case in the case of Hiremutt decided by this court. ( 15 ) IN the two unreported decisions of this Court also, questions or controversies arose as between direct recruits and promotees with reference to seniority dependent upon quotas respectively prescribed for them. Such was also the case in the case of Hiremutt decided by this court. ( 15 ) IN the two unreported decisions of this Court also, questions or controversies arose as between direct recruits and promotees with reference to seniority dependent upon quotas respectively prescribed for them. This Court pointed out that it was wrong to suggest that the Cadre and reqruitment Rules can have nothing to do with senierity and that though general rules as to seniority may be set out in rules like the Mysore government Servants (Seniority) Rules, it is not possible to contend that nothing stated in the Recruitment Rules can have any bearing on the seniority vide the decision in K. S. Nadagouda v. State of Mysore. Dealing with the case of temporary or provisional filling up by promotion 01 vacancies reseived for being filled by aired recruitment in the light of rule 17 (c) of the Mysore Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, and the reversion of a promotee upon a direct recruitment being made this Court pointed out in Shivalngapppa v. State of Mysore that it is not possible for a direct recruit to count his seniority from a date anterior to the date of his actual recruitment by taking advantage of the fact that the vacancy reserved for direct recuitment had been temporarily filled by promotion. ( 16 ) THE question whether the Rules of Recruitment deal only with recruitment or also prescribe a rule oi seniority is a matter of interpretation of the rule in question. The only principle of law is that it is not legally impossible to deal with both the topics in the same rules. ( 17 ) IN the present case, we are not concerned with the distribution of strength of cadre as between direct retruiis and promotees, but with a case where provision is made for promotion to a promotional cadre from three different sources. The fixation of quota or distribution ol" valanues is as between the said three sources. ( 17 ) IN the present case, we are not concerned with the distribution of strength of cadre as between direct retruiis and promotees, but with a case where provision is made for promotion to a promotional cadre from three different sources. The fixation of quota or distribution ol" valanues is as between the said three sources. While the Entry in question merely states that promotion is to be made from among the Assistant Octroi superintendents, Section Managers and Reporters in the ratio of 4:2:1 respectively, the express provision in regard thereto in the order of the state Government of 3rd March 1971 which is part of the Recruitment rules is that promotion is to be made on seniority-cum-merit basis and that seniority for the said purpose is to be reckoned among the eligible persons on the strength of continuous officiation in their respective cadres. ( 18 ) HENCE, it is clear that seniority for purposes of promotion has to be reckoned in respect of each source separately. It follows therefore that all the three cadres cannot be put together for determining seniority to make a promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit. The obvious reason for prescribing separate computation of siniority with reference to each of the sources is that the law has some good reason for making a departure from the normal rule of a common seniority. What that reason is becomes apparent when we see that the law has also chosen to enumerate the three sources and the quotas out of the vacancies allotted to them in a particular order. The only purpose thereof in the context would be that the law requires that promotions should be made first from the source first mentioned, second from the source next mentioned and third from the source last mentioned. So understood, the Recruitment Rules themselves contain the rule for determining seniority among promotees in the promotional cadre. The only purpose thereof in the context would be that the law requires that promotions should be made first from the source first mentioned, second from the source next mentioned and third from the source last mentioned. So understood, the Recruitment Rules themselves contain the rule for determining seniority among promotees in the promotional cadre. ( 19 ) WE therefore hold that on a true interpretation of the Entry in question, in respect of the first four vacancies arising after the promulgation of the Rules in the cadre of Assistant Revenue Officers, promotions must be made from the cadre of Assistant Octroi Superintendents on the basis of seniority cum merit, in respect of the next two vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Revenue Officers promotions should be made from the cadre of Section Managers on the basis of seniority cum merit and in respect of the next or the seventh vacancy promotion should be made from the cadre of reporters on the basis of seniority cum merit, and that the said order must be maintained in making subsequent promotions. ( 20 ) IN the result, we quash the impugned decision of the Commissioner of the Corporation dated 7th August 1971 (copy whereof has been produced as Annexure 'b' to the Writ Petition) and direct that promotions to the cadre of Assistant Revenue Officers be made in the manner set out above. --- *** --- .