NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) IN all these cases, the prayer is to quash the orders of reversion whereby the petitioners have been reverted from the position of Tahsildar, deputy Tahsildar or Taluk Sheristedar, as the case may be, to the lower position of Taluk Sheristedar or First Division Clerk. In one of the cases there is a prayer to quash a certain Gradation List. That, however, makes no difference to the general position that the main grievance is furnished by the impugned order of reversion. ( 2 ) IT is necessary first to summarise the events and circumstances leading to the impugned reversions. ( 3 ) ALL the petitioners belong to the Mysore Division of the Revenue department of the State Government. At the time of the Reorganisation of States, 1-11-1956, they were all in the cadre of First Grade Division clerks or equivalent cadre of First Grade Revenue Inspectors. There was no difference in status between the two, the only difference being that the person working in the ministerial section is called the clerk and the person working in the executive section is called the Revenue Inspector. ( 4 ) FOR purposes of integration under S. 115 of the States Reorganisation act, a tentative Provisional Inter-State Seniority List, referred to merely as a draft, appears to have been first prepared in the year 1962, but that was withdrawn and what was regarded as the Provisional Inter-State seniority List tor purposes of integration was published in the Mysore gazette of 1st June 1967 by means of a Notification dated 18th May 1967. That list contained the names of 483 persons. ( 5 ) SIMILAR lists appear to have been prepared in respect of other or higher cadres like the Taluk bheustedars, Deputy Tahsildars and the tahsildars, etc. ( 6 ) WITH reference to all such lists, the Central Government as the integrating authority made certain suggestions for corrections or alterations sometime in June 1969. So far as the list of First Division Clerks and First Grade Revenue Inspectors was concerned, a category of officials called Parpathegars of Coorg was regarded as a category which could more appropriatey be equated with the First Division Clerks. ( 7 ) IN the meanwhile, certain decisions were rendered by this Court in Writ Petitions which related to claims to promotion by persons serving in the Revenue Department. ( 7 ) IN the meanwhile, certain decisions were rendered by this Court in Writ Petitions which related to claims to promotion by persons serving in the Revenue Department. Two of them are of material importance to the consideration of the questions now before us Tney are (1) the decision dated 9-11-1964 in WP 935 of 1962 presented by one Narasimha murthy (hereinafter referred to as Narasimha Murthy's case) and (2) the decision dated 31-8-1965 in WP. 2335 of 19b3 presented by one Kadegowda (hereinafter referred to as Kadegowda's case ). ( 8 ) THE decision in Narasimha Murthy's, case was that the petitioner narasimha Murthy who was a Second Grade Revenue inspector was entitled to be promoted as First Grade Revenue inspector by passing only the test called the Revenue Higher Test, and that he could not be denied promotion for omission to pass what is called the Accounts Test also. ( 9 ) KADEGOWDA, petitioner in WP. 2335/63, who was a 2nd Divn. Clerk in the ministerial section, got transferred to the executive section as a Second grade Revenue Inspector. When seven new posts or First, Division Clerks were created by the government in the ministerial section and certain persons promoted thereto, he complained in the Writ Petition that he should have been promoted because some or the promotees were his juniors in the ministerial section. In the absence or any counter-affidavit filed by the State Government, Kadegowda succeeded in geting an order directing his promotion with retrospective eilect from 1-1-1947. ( 10 ) THE State Government appeals to have taken the view that each of these cases lays down a certain principle and that they should apply that principle to other similar cases also. One of the results of applying what is regarded as the principle laid down in Kadegowda's case that the number of persons who were regarded as entitled to the benefit thereof, was far larger than the available number of promotional posts. That such a thing is not possible was later pointed out by this Court in hosallappa's case-WP. 2293 of 1967-disposed in August 1969, and also in the case of T. L. Krishniah, (1970)1 Mys. L. J. 168, disposed of on 24th November 1970. That such a thing is not possible was later pointed out by this Court in hosallappa's case-WP. 2293 of 1967-disposed in August 1969, and also in the case of T. L. Krishniah, (1970)1 Mys. L. J. 168, disposed of on 24th November 1970. ( 11 ) APPLYING what they considered to be the principles enunciated in the cases of Kadegowda and Narasimha Murthy, the State Government prepared what is called a Gradation List of First Division Clerks and First Grade Revenue Inspectors by readjusting their positions as shown in the Provisional List of 18th May 1967 and started making review of promotions which resulted in several persons being reverted. The persons so adversely effected filed a large number of writ petitions, viz. , WP. 3393 of 1969 and others. In some of them, interim orders were made staying reversions ; in some cases no such order was made; in many cases in which stay orders had been made, the State government applied for the interim orders being vacated. Ultimately, the state Government sought a final disposal of all the writ petitions by filing a memo stating that they will prepare and publish by 28th February 1970 a revised Provisional Inter-State Seniority List of First Division Clerks and First Grade Revenue Inspectors as on 1st November 1968 in supersession of the earlier Inter-State Seniority Lists and Gradation Lists and that they will thereafter proceed to review promotions. In view of the memo so filed, the writ petitions were disposed of on 23-12-1969 leaving all the contentions of the petitioners open and without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof. ( 12 ) THE State Government, however, was not able to complete and publish the proposed revised Provisional Inter-State Seniority List before the 28th February, 1970 Nevertheless, certain promotions and reversions were made. It is this subsequent inaction and action on the part of the state Government has given rise to all these Writ Petitions. For accuracy of the statement of the position, we should add that same of the writ Petitions included in this batch were those filed before 23rd December 1969 but remainded undisposed of, while Writ Petition 3393 of 1969 and others got disposed of. One of the reasons therefor was that the petitioners were not willing to accept the suggestion of the State Government in the memorandum or to withdraw their writ petitions on the strength of it. One of the reasons therefor was that the petitioners were not willing to accept the suggestion of the State Government in the memorandum or to withdraw their writ petitions on the strength of it. Others were filed subsequently by the petitioners in the disposed of writ petitions, complaining that the undertaking in the memo had not been fully given effect to and that therefore the grievance and contentions stated by them should now be considered; some are new petitions. ( 13 ) DURING the pendency of these Writ Petitions, the State Government published on 19th October 1970 the revised Provisional Inter-State seniority List which they had undertaken to prepare, and one of the pleas put forward by the State Government now during the course of hearing of these Writ Petitions is that in the existing circumstances, the most convenient thing to do would be to permit them to review promotions on the basis of the latest list of 19th October 1970, leaving the petitioners and others affected to get their contentions examined and grievance, if any, redressed by the Central Government in the course of integration before publishing the Final Inter-State Seniority List. ( 14 ) BEFORE proceeding, we should state that in preparing the latest list of 19th October 1970, the State Government has made an attempt to modify the operation of the application of the cases of Kadegowda and narasimha Murthy in the light of what was pointed out in the case of hosallappa. It will be remembered that the normal and well established procedure in the matter of preparing Inter-State Seniority Lists for purpose of integration is first to prepare an equation of posts upon the four principles applicable thereto and then arrange the ranks of officers on the basis of their length of service in the equated posts. The position resulting from the application of the principles enunciated in the case of Kadegowda, narasimha Murthy and Hosalappa is explained by the State government in para 5 of the Explanatory Note as follows:" (5) In preparing this fist the following additional points have been taken into cosideration: (a) According to the decision of the High Court in Narasimha murthy's case a pass in the Revenue Higher Examination was sufficient for promotion from II Division to I Division after 11th January 1950. In some Districts only persons who had passed Revenue Higher as well as Accounts Higher and Criminal Higher (which were prescribed for crossing the Efficiency Bar) had been promoted, overlooking the claims of persons who had passed only Revenue Higher Examination. These promotions have been reviewed and promotional vacancies have been allotted to the persons who are qualified by passing Revenue higher Examination only on the date the vacancy arose. In respect of persons who got promotion on this basis, the vacancies in which they would have been promoted under the rule that only Revenue Higher was necessary for promotion had it been followed from the beginning form the basis for determining the 'deemed' date of promotion now. Persons who had been promoted previously overlooking the claims of other persons on the ground that they had not passed Accounts Higher, criminal Higher examination, have also been now allotted 'deemed' dates, which are the dates on which they would have got promotion if the vacancy had been filled up on the basis of the decision in Narasimha murthy's case. The district-wise seniority lists of II Division clerks have been adopted for purpose of determining the seniority for promotion to the I Division. In all the districts of erstwhile mysore, as per the procedure in force prior to 1st November 1956, confirmed officials were senior to the official ing officials, irrespective of the length of service. (b) So far as the decision in Kadegowda's case is concerned, the high Court have held that officials recruited as II Division Clerks and appointed as II Grade Revenue Inspectors who have liens in the Ministerial cadre should also be promoted to I Division in their turn if they were qualified for such promotions. In most of the districts, the names of officials who were appointed as Revenue Inspectors were not shown in the Seniority List of Clerks and their claims for promotion to i Division had not been recognised in the ministerial cadre. After review in the light of the decision of the High Court referred to above, the claims of all such persons have been taken into consideration, retaining their seniority in the II Division Clerks on the basis of their confirmation, and promotion to the I Division has been conceded in the vacancies that they would have got if they had continued in the ministerial cadre. (c) The decision of the High Court in Hosallappa's case is that while reviewing the promotions on the basis of the decisions given in kadegowda's case and Narasimha Murthy's case, the claims of direct recruits should not be adversely affected by promoting more than one person in one promotional vacancy. This decision has now been implemented by preparing the list of persons who were actually in the i Division as on 31st October 1856 and marking out direct recruits in each such list. Ranks of direct recruits have been kept unaltered while making the review and the promotions have been re-arranged in the order in which they should have got promotion on the basis of narasimha Murthy's case and Kadegowda's case. " ( 15 ) WE have already stated that the List of 18-5-67 contained 483 names. The revised List of 19-10-1970 contains 646 names. The additional 163 names are made up of 33 Parpathegars from Coorg equated to First Division clerks as suggested by the Central Government and 130 people brought into the List by the application of the principles in the cases of kadegowda, Narasimha Murthy and Hosollappa. Certain names in the List are distinguished by the addition of one asterisk and certain others of two asterisks. The former are those promoted by applying Narasimha Murthy's case; the latter are those promoted before the case of Narasimha Murthy but should have been by the application of the said case promoted later than they were actually promoted but could not be accommodated in any available promotional vacancies and had to be retained in the List because they were already in the List. ( 16 ) TWO clear consequences indicated by these circumstances are- (1) that the number of persons shown in the evised List is larger than the number of posts of First Division Clerks and First Grade Revenue inspectors existing on 1st November 1956; and (2) that the application of Narasimha Murthy's case has resulted in reopening old cases of promotion in such a way as to disturb the seniority of persons as from a date anterior to 1st November 1956. ( 17 ) THE argument on behalf of the petitioners is that both these consequences could not have been brought about if the correct principles of law had been applied and that, permitting such consequences, would result in the disobedience of law and the service rules. ( 17 ) THE argument on behalf of the petitioners is that both these consequences could not have been brought about if the correct principles of law had been applied and that, permitting such consequences, would result in the disobedience of law and the service rules. ( 18 ) AS to the first consequence, the petitioners say that they are fully supported by the rulings of this Court in the cases of Hosollappa and krishniah (1), which have made it clear that no promotions, whether retrospective or otherwise, can be made in exccss of the number of available vacancies in the promotional cadre, and that the case of Kadegowda cannot be understood in such a way as to bring about such a consequence. ( 19 ) AS to the second consequence, the petitioners rely upon the case of Chandramouli, (1970) 2 Mys. L. J. 187, and on the case of G. V. B. Naidu, (1970) 2 Mys. L. J. 236, according to which the power of the State Government to decide the question of interse seniority cannot be exercised in such a way as to impede or interfere with the exclusive power of the Central Government to bring about an integration of services under the States Reorganisation Act, and though a question of inter se seniority left undecided by a predecessor-State can be decided by the successor-State even after 1st November 1956, to reopen a closed case may amount to interfering with integration by changing the rights of parties as on 1st November 1956. ( 20 ) BOTH these questions are ones which have a direct bearing on integration and preparation of the Inter-State Seniority list. The primary jurisdiction in that regard vests with the Central Government, and in exercise of such jurisdiction the Central Government may be expected to apply and follow such of the decisions of this Court as have a bearing upon the contentions raised or representations made by persons affected by the provisional Inter-State Seniority List or proposals or suggestions for making variations or alterations therein before finalising the list. ( 21 ) FROM this point of view, it may not be desirable that we should examine the contentions in detail or express any final opinion thereon. ( 22 ) THERE is another reason why it is not necessary to do so. ( 21 ) FROM this point of view, it may not be desirable that we should examine the contentions in detail or express any final opinion thereon. ( 22 ) THERE is another reason why it is not necessary to do so. The principal question now for consideration by us in these cases is the legality or otherwise of the orders of reversion, impugned in these Writ Petitions. The simplest and most direct way of examining this question is by considering whether the reasons stated for the reversions or the basis on which the Government have acted in making these reversions are or is correct in law or sustainable in law. ( 23 ) THE obvious reason is that they have made or prepared a revised inter-State Seniority List which, according to them corrects errors in the original Provisional Inter-State Seniority List of 1987 which have come to light as a result of certain rulings of this Court. The undoubted basis for making reversions is either the Gradation List of 11th September 1968 or the Provisional Inter-State Seniority List of 19th October 1970, or some unpublished list corresponding to the latter. All this is done at a time when the process of integration under the States Reorganisation Act, commencing with the publication of the Provisional Inter-State Seniority list of 18th May 1967, is still incomplete and has not reached finalisation. ( 24 ) THE question is whether, after the publication, of the Provisional inter-State Seniority list on the basis cf which the State Government is enabled to carry on the day-to-day administration by making promotions whenever occasion arises, they could law-fully change the basis for such action from, time to time. The answer to the question is, in our opinion, clearly made in the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Ramaswamy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 175 and of this Court in Kyategowda v. State of Mysore, (1970)2 Mys. L. J. 407. ( 25 ) BEFORE the Supreme Court, the contention was raised that till final integration of services is made, the State Government is not entitled to take into account the Provisional List and that it could proceed to make promotions or transfers only regionwise according to relevant lists prepared by the former integrating States. L. J. 407. ( 25 ) BEFORE the Supreme Court, the contention was raised that till final integration of services is made, the State Government is not entitled to take into account the Provisional List and that it could proceed to make promotions or transfers only regionwise according to relevant lists prepared by the former integrating States. The Supreme Court repelled the contention and stated the legal position as follows:"we cannot therefore accept the contention that the State Government was bound till the final list of integration was made, to make transfers only regionwise. We can see nothing in law which prevents the State Government from proceeding according to the provisional list after such list was prepared. We are of opinion that the view taken by the Mysore High Court in the earlier writ petitions after the framing of the provisional seniority list is correct and the State Government would be entitled to act on that list subject of course to this that if the provisional list is in any way altered when the final list is prepared, the State Government would give effect to the final list. " ( 26 ) IT is the same principle that was applied by this Court in the case of Kyategowda (5), where it is stated:"for adjusting the claims of these various contestants for consideration of their case for promotion and settlement of inter se seniority before and after promotion, the only question that need be considered and decided is what is the list which should be regarded as the list current for purpose of carrying on the day-to-day administration. The answer to the question is also not difficult, because the principles relating to disputes of this nature have been subject to judicial consideration. According to these principles, so long as there is a provisional inter-State Seniority List prepared by the State Government either for the purpose of its own administration or by way of assistance to the central Government for preparing the final Inter-State seniority list, the said list would constitute the current list until it is replaced by the final Inter-State Seniority List prepared and published by the central Government. " ( 27 ) HENCE, the correct view to take is that until a final Inter-State seniority List is prepared, promotions should be governed by the Provisional inter-State Seniority List published on 18th May 1967. " ( 27 ) HENCE, the correct view to take is that until a final Inter-State seniority List is prepared, promotions should be governed by the Provisional inter-State Seniority List published on 18th May 1967. ( 28 ) IT has been argued that the Supreme Court in the case of p. K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850 , has accepted the regularity or correctness of the Central government issuing instructions for correcting or redoing the Provisional list originally published as a step towards the final integration and that therefore when, as in that case, according to the instructions of the Central government certain changes are made in the Provisional List and a revised Provisional List is prepared, it would be perfectly legal to regard the said revised List as the current list and act upon it for purposes of day-to-day administration. We do not think that the second proposition flows from what their Lordships have stated in the case of P. K. Roy (6 ). In recognising the correctness of the Central Government issuing instructions for variations or alterations in the Provisional List, all that the supreme Court was doing was recognising the power of the Central government to bring about integration under S. 115 of the States Reorganisation act. They have not stated anything which makes the principle in Ramaswamy's case (4) inapplicable. Further, if the argument is accepted and taken to its logical conclusion, at every change of opinion in the course of discussion resulting in the revision of a provisional list in certain respects, a fresh review of promotions will have to be made and upheld as proper. Such a situation would lead to great uncertainty and confusion which is never countenanced by any rule of law. The proper way to look at the position is that once the Provisional Inter-State Seniority List is prepared and published as a suggested basis for integration, that must remain available as the current list until a final list is published and that everything that happens in the interim is only a step or stage in the process of integration, which has no independent legal existence or enforceability. The fact that such an interim stage is expressed in the form of a revised-list would mean no more than that such a representation of the result of changes proposed to be made in the original list is regarded as necessary for rendering the right of making representations full and effective. ( 29 ) ONCE it is thus clear that the only correct way of carrying on day-to-day administration is to act upon the original Provisional Inter-State seniority List of 18th May 1967 as the current list, any review of promotions resulting in reversions of persons promoted in accordance with the said Provisional Inter-State Seniority List is not in accordance with law. ( 30 ) IT follows, therefore, that the reversions impugned in these cases cannot be sustained so long as a person who is junior to the petitioners is retained in the cadre from which he is or they are sought to be reverted. The question who is a junior and who is a senior has to be decided with reference to or on the basis of the Provisional Inter-State Seniority List of 18th May 1967. ( 31 ) IN each of these Writ Petitions therefore, we make an order that the impugned order of reversion shall not be given effect to until any person who is junior to the petitioner is retained in the cadre from which the petitioner is sought to be reverted, and that the question of inter se seniority be determined on the basis of the Provisional Inter-State Seniority List of First Divisional Clerks and First Grade Revenue Inspectors, published in the Notification dated 18th May 1967 in the Mysore Gazette dated 1st June 1967. --- *** --- .