NARAYANA PAI, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is now working as a Stenographer in the Secretariat of the State Government, prays for the issue of a writ declaring that the order of the State Government dated 24th January 1962, a copy whereof is produced as Ex. B with the petition, is void or invalid to the extent it directs that the petitioner's service as stenographer during the period prior to 2nd January 1958 should be excluded from consideration for counting his seniority in the Secretariat. ( 2 ) ON the facts as disclosed by the affidavit of the petitioner and the counter-affidavit of one of the Under Secretaries to Government in the general Administration Department on behalf of the State Government, it is seen that the petitoner, who was originally a permanent First Division clerk in the Department of Agriculture, was transferred temporarily to work as Stenographer from 19th November 1953 in the office of the additional Development Commissioner in the erstwhile State of Mysore. The petitioner's name appears in the Inter-State Seniority List of First division Clerks in the Department of Agriculture prepared under the states Reorganisation Act, which supports the case on behalf of the State government that he had a lien on the post of a First Division clerk in the department of Agriculture. In December 1957, the Government of erstwhile state of Mysore took a decision to merge the office of the Additional development Commissioner with the Planning and Development Department of the Secretariat. To give effect to this decision, the Government accorded sanction to the creation of sufficient number of posts in the secretariat to provide for the staff then working in the Office of the Additional development Commissioner. These and other iacidental particulars are set out in the Order of State Government dated 28th December 1957/ 2nd January 1958. a copy whereof is produced as Ex. A with the petition. These and other iacidental particulars are set out in the Order of State Government dated 28th December 1957/ 2nd January 1958. a copy whereof is produced as Ex. A with the petition. That order concludes with the statement that separate orders will issue regarding the allocation of the then staff of the Additional Development commissioner's Office against the newly created posts in the Secretariat ( 3 ) IN 1961 the State Government had to consider the question oi absorption of the non-secretariat staff in various departments into Secretariat service in the light of various problems regarding adjustments which arose in the wake of reorgnisation of the States and in the light of representations made by officials affected or likely to be affected and the opinions expressed by Heads of different departments. The decision in that regard was published in Circular No. GAD-268-ASP-61 dated 23rd october 1961, to the details of which we have already referred in our order dated 19th February 1971 in WPs. 4963 of 1968, 599 of 1969 and 3830 of 1970. For the purpose of this case it is necessary to refer to only one detail of that circular. The Government stipulated therein that the absorption of personnel in the Secretariat Service would be subject to certain conditions enumerated therein, one of which was that such of the officials as desire to be absorbed in the Secretariat Service should give up their claims of seniority in respect of service rendered by them either in the Secretariat or elsewhere prior to a certain date. Undertakings from such persons so desirous of getting absorbed in the Secretariat Service were also taken in a form prescribed by the State Government which contained an express statement that they voluntarily gave up their claims of seniority as required by the circular. ( 4 ) SO far as the staff originally working in the office of the Additional development Commissioner was concerned, orders of absorption appear to have been passed only in the case of those who had no permanent lien in any other department but those who held a lien in any other department were ordered to be repatriated. Thereafter, the Development commissioner appeals to have requested the Government to reconsider the matter in view of the action subsequently taken by the Government pursuant to the above circular of 23rd October 1961. Thereafter, the Development commissioner appeals to have requested the Government to reconsider the matter in view of the action subsequently taken by the Government pursuant to the above circular of 23rd October 1961. After examining the said request, the State Government passed the order now impugned in this writ petition, viz. , Order No. GAD 31 ASP 62 dated 24th January 1962. The opening paragraph thereof reads as follows:"in the Government Order read above, orders were issued abosorbing in the Mysore Government Secretariat such of the staff of the Additional Development Commissioner's Office as had no permanent liens in any other department. The officials who had their liens in any other department were ordered to be repatriated to their parent departments. After the issue of these orders the Development Commissioner requested Government to reconsider the matter in view of the changed decision of Government in regard to the absorption oi non-Secretariat Staff in the Mysore Government Secretariat. The matter has now been reviewed by Government and so far as the staff of the former Additional Development Commissioner's Office is concerned, Government have now decided that: (i) The staff of the former Additional Development Commissioner's office now working in the Development and Rural Local administration Department should be offered the same terms and conditions for absorption in the Mysore Government Secretariat as have been offered to other Non-Secretarat staff in Government Circular no. GAD 268 ASP 1961 dated 23-10-61 and that the staff should be given time till 1-2-1962 to exercise their option in terms of the said Circular. (ii) Such of the staff of the former Additional Development Commissioner's office who have their liens in their parent department and who do not desire to be absorbed in Mysore Government Secretariat in accordance with the conditions stated at (1) above should be repatriated to their parent department. "the seeond paragraph deals with specific cases of six officials with reference to whom it is stated that two out of them were later discovered to have liens in the Departments of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry but that their absorption had proceeded on the misconception that they had no liens in any other department. Consequently, the absorption was cancelled and it was directed that they should be absorbed only on the terms and conditions specified in clause (i) of paragraph copied above. Consequently, the absorption was cancelled and it was directed that they should be absorbed only on the terms and conditions specified in clause (i) of paragraph copied above. ( 5 ) PARAGRAPH 4 of the order which relates to the petitioner and two other Stenographers reads as follows:"out of the remaining 16 officials, it is seen that 3 Stenographers, viz. . Sri N. C. Ramakrishnaiah, Sri B. M. Mallikarjuna Aradhya and Sri H. K. Chandrasekhara Rao were appointed directly as Stenographers in the Community Projects Organisation and that they have no lien as Stenographers in other departments. Sanction is therefore accorded to their absorption in the Mysore Government Secretariat as Stenographers with effect from 2-1-1958. They will be given seniority also with effect from that date in accordance with the earlier decision of Government which was also concurred ix by the Public service Commission. " ( 6 ) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioner had not given any undertaking of the type required under the Circular of 23rd October, 1961. ( 7 ) UPON these facts, the rival contentions on behalf of the petitioner and the State Government are that while the petitioner claims that he is not governed by the decision in the case of Parameswaran, (1971) 1 Mys. L. J. 378 mentioned above but that he is governed by the decisions in the cases of Sastry and murnal, WP. 2115/65 dt. 31-3-67 rendered on 31st March 1967, the State Government contends that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the decision in Sastry's case (2 ). ( 8 ) THE cases of Sastry and Murnal (2) and connected cases were also eases of absorption of the said two officials into Secretariat Service. The decision therein was that their absorption in the Secretariat Service did take effect but that the conditions subsequently imposed by the Government whereby they were deprived of the benefit of their previous service for the purpose of seniority could not be enforced. ( 9 ) IF the facts of the case of Sastry and Murnal (2) are the same as or similar to, those of the petitioner's case herein, there could of course be no doubt that the said decision will govern the present case also. ( 10 ) THE facts, however, are not identical. The orders of absorption of both Sastry and Murnal were first passed without imposing any conditions. ( 10 ) THE facts, however, are not identical. The orders of absorption of both Sastry and Murnal were first passed without imposing any conditions. In the case of Sastry, he was asked to give up the benefit of previous service but he refused to do so. In the case of Murnal, he was not even asked to give up such benefit. Hence in the case of both of them, the deprivation of the benefit of previous service was the result of an action of the State Government without their consent. We should add that there was no circular or any general order like the circular of 23rd October 1961 mentioned above; nor was there any other evidence of previous stipulation of conditions for absorption by the State Government. ( 11 ) IT is in those circumstances that this Court held that the absorption became effective and that the result thereof was not different from a transfer from one department to another by the Government in public interest, which excluded the idea of the same being considered or regarded as a transfer at the request of the officials Sastry and Murnal. The result of this opinon on facts and their legal effect was that the State government could nof apply the proviso to Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules to either Sastry or Murnal. ( 12 ) HENCE, from the decisions in the cases of Sastry, Murnal and parameswaran the following principles flow, viz. , that the absorption by the State Government of any officer in Secretariat Service is in the nature of a transfer of the said official from one department to another in public interest, with the result that he will get the benefit of to 3 main provision of Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules, viz. , that he will be entitled to count his service in the previous post carrying the same salary for purposes of seniority in the Secretariat Service, that the benefit of the said Rule can be voluntarily given up by officials if they consider the same to be to their advantage, because on their being absorbed in the Secretariat Service they cease to be liable for further transfer to other non-Secretariat departments but that such result cannot be brought about by an order of the State Government alone without the consent of the official concerned. ( 13 ) THE only remaining question for consideration in this case is whether such a consent can be imputed to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case, and whether the previous notification or intimation of the terms and conditions on which absorption would be given effect to, could bring about an effective absorption if the terms are not assented to by the official concerned. ( 14 ) ON the first question, we have no doubt that it will be a dangerous proposition to say that it is just and proper to impute consent on the basis of mere continuance in the Secretariat Service without disclaiming or refusing to accept the terms stipulated by the Government for absorption. At the same time, it is equally unfair to deny the Government the right to transfer the petitioner to some other department, by reason only of the fact that it has permitted the petitioner to work in the Secretariat service although he had not signified his assent to or acceptance of the terms of absorption As we have pointed out in our ruling in. the case of parameswaran, the entire matter is in the nature of a bargain between the official and the Government, the former giving up the benefit of previous service for purposes of seniority in consideration of the Government conferring upon him the benefit of not transferring him thereafter from the Secretariat Service to any other deparment If justice requires that mere continuance in the Secretariat Service on the part of the petitioner should not be reason enough to impute to him a consent or assent to the terms offered or stipulated by the Government, the same considerations of justice require that the Government should not be held to its promise of absorption without getting the benefit of the petitioner's consent to the terms of absorption. ( 15 ) THE proper view to take on the facts of this case is that the absorption has not taken effect, that therefore the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the main provision of Rule 6 of the Seniority rules but that he cannot insist that he be retained in the Secretariat Service or question the right of the Government to transfer him to any other non-secretariat department if it chooses to do so. We make it clear that it would still be open to the Government to give effect to the absorption if the petitioner consents to accept the terms of the impugned order dated 24th January 1962. We hold accordingly and direct that the petition do stand disposed of in the said terms. --- *** --- .