NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these cases entered service under the Government of the erstwhile State of Bombay in its revenue department in districts, which on the re-organisation of States, became integrated in the new state of Mysore. Some time after the integration, steps were taken to prepare a gradation list or inter seniority list of petitioners and other clerks similarly situated in the light of the rules and binding instructions issued by the Government of the erstwhile State of Bombay. The State Government followed the procedure of first publishing a provisional list, invit ing objections and suggestions and then issuing a final list, after consideration of such suggestions and objections. A final list was also actually published. Thereafter, some of the clerks made further objections by way of representations or appeals addressed to the Divisional Commissioner of the area, contending that on a proper application of the instructions contained in a circular of the Bombay Government bearing No. EDQ. 1053, dated 8-10-1953, they the petitioners were entitled to positions higher than those assigned to the petitioners in these writ petitions. Some of the appellants succeeded and the petitioners were given or assigned later dates of confirmation. They are aggrieved by the said order of the Divisional commissioner and complain against the same in these writ petitions, on the ground that the circular depended upon by the Divisional Commissioner does not have the force of law or alternatively that the interpretation placed thereon by the Divisional Commissioner is erroneous. ( 2 ) THE same order of the Divisional Commissioner dated the 24th of november, 1967 was challenged in three other W. P. Nos. 2617, 2520 and 2544 of 1967. This Court set aside the order on the ground that there has not been an application of the mind to and a clear decision upon the question of the true meaning to be assigned to the expression 'recruitment' contained in the Bombay Government's circular of 8th October, 1953 and directed the State Government to re-hear the appeals and decide them according to law. There is, thus, no decision on the main question of law raised and discussed before as in these wit petitions. Nor were the present petitioners parties to those writ petitions. We. There is, thus, no decision on the main question of law raised and discussed before as in these wit petitions. Nor were the present petitioners parties to those writ petitions. We. therefore, proceed to decide these matters on merits, because it will be in public interest to finally pronounce upon the questions which are bound to recur if not finally decided. ( 3 ) THE first contention of lack of competence in the Bombay Government to issue the circular proceeds upon the argument that the subject matter thereof is covered and governed by the Bombay Civil Services classification and Recruitment Rules promulgated in exercise of the powers under Ss. 241 and 255 of the Government of India Act, 1935 which therefore, have the same status as rules promulgated by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso appended to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. We find, however, that the circular, far from contravening any of the provisions of the said Bombay Civil Services classification and Recruitment Rules, is actually one within the authority conferred by the said rules themselves Rule 7 thereof reads: "government shall prescribe the qualifications in respect of are and education which shall be required to be possessed by candidates for admission to the provincial and subordinate service. The qualifications so far prescribed are stated in Appendices C and D. " rule 141 referred to and commented upon both in the affidavit in support of the petitions as well as the arguments, is a rule which is included in Appx. D which, as clearly pointed out in rule 7, collects and states in the same place the various instructions of the Government regarding qualifications already published before the promulgation of the rule. The circular, therefore, must be regarded as either amending or adding to the previous Appx. D, pursuant to the power expressly conferred by rule 7. ( 4 ) WE, therefore, uphold the validity of the circular as one competently issued by the Government of the erstwhile State of Bombay and binding on the petitioners at the time of their allotment to the new State of Mysore, ( 5 ) THE circular of 8th October, 1953 itself is an amendment of a previous circular No. 10218|45 dated 19th November, 1948, which, in its turn, was a modification of a previous circular of the year 1937 bearing No. 5156/33 dated 23-2-1937. ( 6 ) THE circular of 1937 to the extent material, stated: No person having a qualification Lower than Matriculate Examination and no person who is not able to type at least 30 (thirty) words per minute shall be enlisted as a Clerk. The circular of 19th November, 1948 read:"government consider that henceforth no person should be enlisted as a clerk who does not know typing with a speed of at least 30 words per minute. The following amendment should accordingly be made to paragraph 1 of Govt. Circular No. 5156/33, dt. 23rd February, 1937: substitute the following for Clause (4): (4) No person having a qualification lower than Matriculate examination and no person wno is not able to type at least 30 (thirty) words per minute shall be enlisted as a clerk. " ( 7 ) THE preamble to the circular of October, 1953 indicates that recruiting authorities in the districts were finding it difficult to secure sufficient number of persons with the qualification regarding typing, that therefore the circular of 19th November, 1948 was kept in abeyance till the end of June, 1953. The circular itself substituted a new clause for the previous clause 4 which reads:"no person having a qualification lower than the Marticuiation examination shall be enlisted as a clerk; provided that (i) while recruiting candidates for enlistment as clerks, the recruiting authorities shall give preference to persons knowing typing, other things being equal, and (ii) no candidate recruited after 19th November 1948 shall be confirmed as a clerk unless he shows that he is able to type at least 30 words per minute. " ( 8 ) THE original circular and the two amendments make it clear that the undoubted intention of the Bombay Government was that a person who could be regularly employed as a clerk in the revenue department should have two minimum qualificatons, viz. , passing the matriculation examination and being able to type at least 30 words per minute. When it was found difficult to secure sufficient number of persons possessing both these minimum qualifications, the Government modified its original rule and permitted recruitment of persons though not qualified in typng as required by the rule, subject to the condition that they should not be confirmed until they acquire the qualification of being able to type at least 30 words per minute. ( 9 ) MOST of the petitioners in these cases had entered service, though not legular service, before the crucial date mentioned in the circular viz. , 19th November, 1948. On behalf of such persons, it has been contended that the new rule made applicable by the circular of 8th October, 1953 should not be applied to them. According to them, recruitment must mean or must be taken to mean original entry into service. ( 10 ) ON this question, it is necessary to refer to two previous decisions of this Court, one rendered on the 30th November, 1971 in Syed ameen Rasool Saheb Munshi v. State of Mysore, WP. 1159 of 1958 and the other rendered on 18th January, 1972 in M. C. Naik v. State of Mysore, WP. 530 of 1969. In these cases, the procedure normally followed in the revenue department of the erstwhile State of Bombay has been discussed in some detail. As pointed out therein, although persons were permitted to work as clerks in the revenue department and also given the benefit of increments in the scale applicable to them, they became regular Government servants only upon what is described as 'enlistment which is equivalent to regular recruitment in Government service. Under the circular relating to fixation of seniority issued in March, 1931, recruiting authorities were required to maintain two lists, one in form 'a' and the other in form 'b'. In the former were entered the names of persons regularly recruited but on a temporary basis (a position equivalent to that of a probationer) and in list B were entered the names of persons who were confirmed in service. The enlistment means the entry of persons' names in list 'a' after regular recruitment (vide paragraph 2 of the order in W. P. 530/1969 etc. ). ( 11 ) IF this clarification of the position in the said two judgments of this Court is borne in mind, there could be no doubt that recruitment referred to in the circular of October, 1953, which is the subject matter of these writ petitions, means nothing other than the actual enlistment or entry of the candidate's name in list 'a'. The proviso which we have copied, refers to recruitment as one 'for enlistment' in its first clause; the use of the word 'recruit' alone in the second clause could not be made to suggest, in our opinion, any meaning other than 'recruit for enlistment'. The context in which it is used and the purpose or legal effect of the preparation of lists 'a' and 'b' under the relevant circular lead to no other conclusion, nor suggest any meaning other than the one stated above. ( 12 ) THE answer to the controversy in these cases, therefore, depends upon the answer to the question, when or on which date the petitioner in each of these writ petitions was enlisted by the inclusion of his name in list 'a'. On a scrutiny of the annexures to the various petitions, we find that 10 out of the 12 petitioners were enlisted on 1-11-1951 and the remaining two on 25-10-1949. All of them, therefore, were enlisted after 19th november, 1948, which is the crucial date for the application of the circular of October, 1953 regarding the qualification of being able to type at least 30 words per minute. ( 13 ) IT is not disputed that none of these petitioners the said qualification regarding typing. Hence, they could not be properly confirmed on any date anterior to 10th February, 1958, when, on the coming into force of the Mysore Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, the necessity of possessing the typing qualification disappeared by the Mysore rules replacing the circulars of the Government of the erstwhile State of Bombay. ( 14 ) THE petitioners cannot, therefore, complain about the cancellation of the earlier orders of confirmation which proceeded on misapprehension of the relevant rule, though in force. ( 15 ) ALL the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. --- *** --- .