NARAYANA PAI, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners who were recruited as local candidates were served with a notice dated 16th December 1970 terminating their services after one month from the date of notice or on the date when the candidates selected by the Public Service Commission report for duty whichever is earlier. ( 2 ) THEIR prayer is to quash the said notices and to issue a mandamus to the respondents, the Joint Director of Public Instruction and the State of Mysore, to regularise their services in terms of the Rules called Mysore state Civil Services (Direct Recruitment to Class III Posts) (Special) rules, 1970. ( 3 ) SO far as the prayer to quash the notice is concerned, the legal position is fully covered by the decision of this Court rendered on the 5th January 1971 in WP. No. 3895 of 1970 and connected cases where it has been pointed out that both by the terms of their appointment and the force of Rule 5 of the Mysore State Civil Services (Temporary Services) rules 1967 under which the notice had been issued, they had no right whatever to assail the notice as illegal or incompetent. Tt is not possible, therefore, to entertain any further argument on the question of the alleged illegality or unenforceability of the notice. ( 4 ) INDEED the case is not that the notice considered in itself can be struck down as illegal, but that having regard to the number of vacancies in the department, which, according to the petitioners, are still available, there was no necessity to issue the notice at all because the petitoners could upon an applcation of the Special Rules mentioned above which were promulgated on 19th December 1970, be retained or continued in service. ( 5 ) BEFORE proceeding to examine this question, we may first dispose of an argument that in the previous order of this Court referred to above,. there is something which supports the contention that the persons in the position of the petitioners have acquired a certain indefeasible right. ( 5 ) BEFORE proceeding to examine this question, we may first dispose of an argument that in the previous order of this Court referred to above,. there is something which supports the contention that the persons in the position of the petitioners have acquired a certain indefeasible right. The paragraph relied upon is para 13 which reads:"we do not think that the petitioners stand to lose much because on the 19th of December 1970 the Government have issued certain rules called the Mysore State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment to class III Posts) (Special) Rules, 1970, which are intended to apply primarily to persons in the position of the present petitioners. Even if the termination takes effect, the petitioners will undoubtedly be entitled to have their claims under trhe rules examined by the appropriate authorities and be given the benefit thereof if they come within the scope of the Rules. "the paragraph, in our opinion, does not confer any right or recognise the existence or acquisition of any right by the petitioners under the Special rules of December 1070. All that this Court observed was that the termination of service assailed in those rases unsuccessfuly would not lay the petitioners open to any serious prejudice or dis-advantage because with a view to absorb as many of them as possible in regular Government service the State Government had promulgated the Special Rules in Decembwer 1970. ( 6 ) IF the scheme of the Rules is clearly understood, the position is that in the first instance persons selected by the Public Service Commission and allocated and allotted to various posts in different departments have first to be appointed. Having regard to the previous allocation on allotment, their appointments must be to posts in respect of which the allocation or allotment is made No local candidate, therefore, who occupies or holds any such position by virtue of his appointment as such can resist the termination of his service requiring him to vacate the post to make place for the candidates selected by the Public Service Commission. It is only in respect of posts remaining after all the candidates selected by the Public Service Commission have been given their appointments and after local candidates whose services had been regularised under the previous Rules of 1966 have been provided with posts, that persons in the position of the petitioners can clai'm any right to consideration of their case for appointment. Even there the departments or the post to which they can be appointed is not left to their choice but to the choice of authorities specified in the Rules. ( 7 ) EVEN from the point of view of acquisition of some substantial benefit by the petitioners, it is to their advantage to secure an order of appointment because it is only thereafter that their service will count for increments, pension, seniority etc and no service rendered as a local candidate at any time anterior to his appointment under the Special Rules can count for any one of those purposes. It is obvious that there cannot be any appointment unless there is a previous termination, even if it is formal in nature. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the Rules cannot be operated at all unless the number of vacancies now available is first ascertained department by department, and that if there are sufficient number of vacancies to accommodate all persons no question of termination arises. He further states that in the case of persons promoted to a higher cadre in excess of the number reserved for promotion under the relevant Recruitment Rules must be regarded as persons not entitled to hold that post at all and that the vacancies in higher posts so occupied by such persons must be regarded as available. We are rather surprised to hear such an argument at the hands of the person in the position of the petitioner who, by the very terms of his appointment is appointed subject to the condition that his services will be terminated at any time without any previous notice or assigning any reasons therefor. Surely persons in regular Government service are entitled to a higher voice than the local candidates in respect of their right to hold a post whether permanently or on an officiating basis. Surely persons in regular Government service are entitled to a higher voice than the local candidates in respect of their right to hold a post whether permanently or on an officiating basis. ( 9 ) IN any event, having regard to the manner in which the Special rules have to be worked, it is impossible to accept the contention of the petitioners that their services shall not be terminated at all. Both the writ petitions are therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .