NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was serving as a Class II Officer in the Engineering department of the erstwhile State nf Rombay was one of the allottees to the new State of Mysore under the States Reorganisation Act. By a notice dated 24th October, 1969, in exercise of the power under Note 1 to Rule 285 of the Mvsore Civil Services Rules he was retired from service with effect from 25th October. 1969. The petitioner imougns the validity of the said order on the ground that the rule on the strength of which the same had been issued was not enforceable against him on the date of the notice. ( 2 ) THE legal position is already declared in the decision of this court reported in S. K. Shettly v. State of Muosre, (1970) 2 Mys. L. J. 197. wherein it has been pointed out that the enforcement of Note I to Rule 285 of the Mvsore civil Services Rules against the allottees from Bombay would amount to a variation to their disadvantage of a condition of service applicable to them immediately before the reorganisation of State from 1-11-1956. ( 3 ) THE only argument nressed on behalf of the State Government in support of the notice was that there was in Bombay State a rule where by persons in Engineering service could be retired after attaining the age of fifty. Reference was to paragraph 9, of sub-rule (2) of Rule 161 of the bombay Civil Services Rules, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:"except as otherwise provided in this sub-clause, Government servants in the Bombav Service of Engineer, Class I, must retire on reaching the age of 55 years and may be required by Government to retire on reaching the age of fifty vears if they have not attained the rank of Superintending Engineer. " ( 4 ) THE only stress in the reasoning in support of the alleged applicability of this rule to the petitioner is that, at the time the action was sought to be taken against him, he had been promoted to Class I. But it is an admitted fact that at the time he stood allotted to this State he was working as a Class II Officer. This rule, therefore, cannot bear the description of a rule laving down a condition of service applicable to the petitioner immediately before 1-11-1956. This rule, therefore, cannot bear the description of a rule laving down a condition of service applicable to the petitioner immediately before 1-11-1956. ( 5 ) THIS case, therefore, is directly within the scope of the ruling cited above. ( 6 ) THE notice or the order of retirement impugned, has to be and is hereby quashed. ( 7 ) THE result would be that instead of retiring from service from 25th October, 1969 as specified in the said notice, the petitioner must be taken to have retired in the normal course by superannuation on 18th nov, 1970. The amounts payable to him will be calculated accordingly. --- *** --- .s