NARAYANA PAI, J. ( 1 ) THE question raised in all these four writ petitions is the same and a consideration of the facts and contentions in WP. 2469 67 will dispose of all the four writ petitions. ( 2 ) THE petitioners, K. Satyanarayana, S. Venkataraman, M. K. Gundappa and K. Padmanabhachar were directly recruited as Income-tax inspectors in and after June 1960. Respondents 4 to 10 in WP. 2469 67 were promoted as Income-tax Inspectors before the petitioners were recruited, but after 22-12-1959. There are two more respondents in WP. 2469/67 and a further two in another writ petition who were promoted as Income-tax inspectors before 22-12-1959. It will not be necessary to refer to the said respondents. We shall, therefore refer to the first ten respondents as 'respondents' and the others, should it become necessary, as 'further respondents'. ( 3 ) PETITIONER Satyanarayana was confirmed with effect from 1-12-64 and the other three petitioners with effect from 1-8-1965. The respondents were confirmed subsequently. ( 4 ) THE question raised is as to the relative seniority as between the petitioners and respondents in the cadre of Income-tax Inspectors, the contention of the petitioners being that they are seniors to the respondents. ( 5 ) THE determination of the question depends upon the true interpretation and effect of a memorandum of the Ministry of Home Affairs, government of India, hearting No. 9/11/55-RPs. dt. 22-12-1959. ( 6 ) PRIOR to 22-6-1949, one of the general principles for determination of seniority in the same cadre was that permanent or confirmed officers are to be ranked seniors to persons who are officiating in the same grade which means, that persons who are confirmed earlier become seniors of persons who are confirmed subsequently. But with a view to safeguard the interests of displaced Government servants and various other Government servants prejudicially affected by the partition of the country the old rule was suspended with effect from 22-6-1949 and fresh instructions were issued to count seniority solely on the basis of length of service. The said instructions of 22-6-1949 and similar subsequent connected notifications were withdrawn and cancelled by the memorandum of 22-12-1959 referred to above and the old rule of seniority based on confirmation was reinstated or brought into force again. The said instructions of 22-6-1949 and similar subsequent connected notifications were withdrawn and cancelled by the memorandum of 22-12-1959 referred to above and the old rule of seniority based on confirmation was reinstated or brought into force again. After referring to the necessity for the change-over made for the benefit of displaced persons and stating that as the specific objects underlying the said instructions have been achieved, there is no longer any reason to apply those instructions in preference to the normal principles for determination of seniority, the memorandum of december 1959 states in paragraph 3 " 3. The instructions contained in the various Office Memoranda cited in paragraph I above are hereby cancelled, except in regard to determination of seniority of persons appointed to the various Central services prior to the date of this Memorandum. The revised General principles embodied in the annexure will not apply with retrospective effect, but will come into force with effect from the date of issue of these orders, unless a different date in respect of any particular service grade from which these revised principles are to be adopted for purposes of determining seniority has already been or is hereafter agreed to by this Ministry. " paragraphs 2 to 4 of the annexure which are of relevance read as follows: " 2. Subject to the provision of para 3 below, persons appointed in a substantive or officiating capacity to a grade prior to the issue of these general principles shall retain the relative seniority already assigned to them or such seniority as may hereafter be assigned to them under the existing orders applicable to their cases and shall en bloc be senior to all others in that grade. Explanation: For the purpose of these principles (a) persons who are confirmed retrospectively with effect from a date earlier than the issue of these general principles; and (b) persons appointed on probation to a permanent post substantively vacant in a grade prior to the issue of these general principles, shall be considered to be permanent officers of the grade. 3. Subject to the provisions of para 4 below, permanent officers of each grade shall be ranked senior to persons who are officiating in that grade. 4. 3. Subject to the provisions of para 4 below, permanent officers of each grade shall be ranked senior to persons who are officiating in that grade. 4. Direct Recruits: Notwithstanding the provisions of para 3 above, the relative seniority of all direct reqruits shall be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for that appoinment, on the recommendations of the UPSC. or other selecting authority, persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection. " ( 7 ) THE general statement of the position as aforesaid is not denied or controverted in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Income-tax Department. The sole defence to the claim of seniority made by the petitioners is that in the light of paragraph 3 andf the Memorandum of December 1959 and with agreement of the Home Ministry, the date 1-7-1964 has been fixed as the date from which the principles set out in the annexure to the Memorandum are to be given effect to so far as the Income-tax Department is concerned. It is therefore stated that as on the said date 1-7-1964 the respondents were seniors of the petitioners counting their length of service and that the said seniority has to be maintained irrespective of their dates of confirmation whether "those dates fall prior to 1-7-1964 or subsequent thereto. ( 8 ) TWO questions arise while interpreting the Memorandum of 22-12-1959 and its annexure namely, (1) can the date other than 22-12-1959 which can be fixed for giving effect to the annexure be a date subsequent to 22-12-1959? and (2) what is the combined effect of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the annexure? ( 9 ) ON the first question, the view strongly pressed by Mr. Rama jois on behalf of the petitioners is that the other date can only be a date prior to 22-12-1959 for two reasons. Firstly, the earlier portion of the Memorandum itself says that the instructions of June 1949 for counting seniority merely on length of service having served their specific objects, there is no longer any reason to apply them in future in preference to normal principles. Firstly, the earlier portion of the Memorandum itself says that the instructions of June 1949 for counting seniority merely on length of service having served their specific objects, there is no longer any reason to apply them in future in preference to normal principles. Secondly, the first sentence in paragraph 3 repeals all such instructions and hence any date subsequent to 22-12-1959 for bringing into effect the annexure would be not only inconsistent with the very object of the change, but would also bring about an interregnum when there will be no rules in force because, the intermediate instructions stand cancelled and the coining into force of new instructions is postponed. ( 10 ) THERE is considerable force in this suggestion. But it may not be necessary to finally pronounce upon the question in this case because, the circumstance which makes a difference, viz. , confirmation, took place in the case of the petitioners and respondents after 1-7-64, the date mentioned in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent. ( 11 ) COMING now to the second point dealing with the interpretation of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the annexure, one thing that is perfectly clear and beyond controversy is that para 3 operates prospectively from the date of bringing into force of the annexure. That it is subject to paragraph 4 does not make any difference to our present discussion. What is of importance is, as from and subsequent to the commencement of the operation of the annexure, seniority has necessarily to be determined on the basis of the date of confirmation. ( 12 ) PARAGRAPH 2 of the annexure by its very language deals with persons appointed before the date on which the annexure is brought into force. That para deals with two types of seniorities namely, (1) en bloc seniority of all persons appointed previously over all others subsequently appointed, and (2) relative seniority as between themselves. There is no difficulty at all so far as en bloc seniority is concerned. All the persons appointed prior to the coming into force of the annexure, whether confirmed or not will be seniors to everyone appointed subsequent to the coming into force of the annexure. But, the retention of relative seniority as between themselves is made subject to the provisions of paragraph 3. All the persons appointed prior to the coming into force of the annexure, whether confirmed or not will be seniors to everyone appointed subsequent to the coming into force of the annexure. But, the retention of relative seniority as between themselves is made subject to the provisions of paragraph 3. Paragraph 3, as already staged, operates as from the date on which the annexure is brought into force. It will not apply therefore, to any confirmations made with effect from a date prior there to according to existing orders that is to say, orders prevalent prior to the coming into force of the annexure because, relative seniority till then is fixed by length of service irrespective of confirmation. But ' if a confirmation is made with effect from a date subsequent to the coming into force of the annexure, then, undoubtedly it is governed by paragraph 3 of the annexure and confers seniority on the persons so confirmed against others not till then confirmed. That, in our opinion, is the value to be given to the expression, subject to the provisions of para 3 below occurring at the commencement of para 2. To say that paragraph 2 does not at all apply to persons appointed prior to the commencement of the annexure would be to go against the very language of the paragraph because it expressly refers to persons appointed prior to the issue of annexure. It is not proper to place an interpretation which renders either a whole paragraph or part of paragraph totally inoperative. We should give an oppration to paragraph 2 as well as to the expression 'subject to the provisions of para 3 below' contained therein. It is not proper to place an interpretation which renders either a whole paragraph or part of paragraph totally inoperative. We should give an oppration to paragraph 2 as well as to the expression 'subject to the provisions of para 3 below' contained therein. ( 13 ) THE combined effect of paragraphs 2 and 3 therefore, in our opinion, is that, (i) persons appointed before the coming into force of the annexure are en bloc senior to all others appointed subsequently and (ii) that their relative seniority as on the date of commencement of the annexure remains undisturbed by any confirmations made, whether before or after its commencement, if the said confirmation is to take effect from a date anterior to the coming into force of the annexure; but that if the confirmation is to take effect after the coming into force of the annexure, it is governed by paragraph 3 of the annexure and the relative seniority which is subject to the said paragraph will get disturbed by conferring seniority on a person confirmed as against those not confirmed till then. ( 14 ) IN the present case, as already stat/ed, all the petitioners and respondents were confirmed after 1-7-1964. Hence their relative seniority is to be ascertained by applying paragraph 3 of the annexure. ( 15 ) WE make a common order in these four writ petitions containing a declaration to that effect. --- *** --- .