ORDER Tare, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by an Assistant Professor of a Government College challenging the order, dated 29-8-1962 (Petitioner's Aunexure-C), which was purported to have been issued from the office of the Director of Public Instructions and which, the 6th respondent, B.L. Goyal, was said to have signed for the Director of Public Instructions. According to the petitioner, the said order was not only in contravention of section 115(7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, but also on merits, it was had inasmuch as it had given unjustified preference to members of the administrative services in the Education department over the members of the Teaching side. The petitioner's contention has been that on account of this unwarranted and illegal action of the Director of Public Instructions, the respondents were unduly promoted; while the petitioner being on the Teaching side in the Education department, had to suffer. 2. The respondents' contention is that the equation of posts on the administrative and the teaching sides had been correctly and legally made in accordance with the principles laid down by the Central Government and as such, there was no violation of section 115(7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, nor did this circular letter fixing the seniority of the two branches in the executive and the teaching side, in the services interfered with the seniority fixed by the Integration Order passed by the Central Government. That is the disputed question raised in the present writ petition. 3. Before referring to the facts and background of the present case, it may be relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned circular letter fixing the seniority. In that letter it was stated that it had been decided to prepare a sentority list of officers with M. Ed. and M.A. in Psychology qualifications working in the department. Therefore, the names of all the officers, gazetted and non-gazetted separately working under the heads of departments or institutions were directed to be sent and a list of seniority was to be compiled on that basis. and M.A. in Psychology qualifications working in the department. Therefore, the names of all the officers, gazetted and non-gazetted separately working under the heads of departments or institutions were directed to be sent and a list of seniority was to be compiled on that basis. As regards the basis, the directions in the circular letter were to the following effect:- "In the list of gazetted officers, persons whose names appear in the C.G.L. (Combined Gradation List-published by the General Admis-tration Department) should first be included and those who entered gazetted service after 31-10-1956, should be shown below them. Officers in the following categories and cadres should be grouped together and their seniority counted from the date shown in Column 6 of the C.G.L. (for those who are shown in it) or from the date of continued officiation in the posts (for those who were appointed on gazetted posts after 31-10-1956), including equated posts, as the case may be. (a) Officers in Category I (Administrative and teaching Category III, combined). (b) Officers in Category II Administrative and, Category No. IV leaching, combined. (c) Officers in Category V (Teaching) all sub-categories are to be amalgamated into one group. (d) Officers, who have been appointed as Assistant Professors or Principals, Multipuposes Higher Secondary Schools, after 31-10-1956. (e) Officers who have been appointed as Principals, Higher Secondary Schools, Basic Training Schools and Colleges, District Educational Officers. (f) Officers appointed as Lecturers of Vice-Principals in P.G.B.T. Colleges and Basic Training Colleges, respectively after 31-10-56. Note- Date of continued officiation in the post of equated posts should be sent separately. For the purpose of seniority date of appointment in graduate teachers scales should be taken into account". Such lists were to be compiled and sent to the office of the Director of Public Instructions by the 15th of September, 1962. 4. The petitioner's main grievance regarding this equation of posts is with regard to Item (b) above wherein Category No.II, Administrative side and Category No. IV, Teaching side, have been equated together and as such, Category No. II, Administrative side, has been given preference over category No, V of Teaching side. According to the petitioner, Category No. II on the Administrative side, ought to have been equated with Category No. V on the Teaching side. 5. According to the petitioner, Category No. II on the Administrative side, ought to have been equated with Category No. V on the Teaching side. 5. For this purpose it is necessary to take a note of the instructions given by the Central Government, while preparing the Combined Gradation List. The said list was published in the M.P. Government Gezette (Extra-ordinary), dated 26-5-1962, (Petitioner's Annexure-B). In that list under Category No. V, sub-category (b) under the heading 'Officiating/Temporary), we find the name4 of the petitioner at serial No. 41. The petitioner is shown to be belonging to Mahakoshal region and the date of commencement of continuous officiation in the equated post was shown to be 26-6-1956 and that was also held to be the date from which his seniority in the Combined Gradation List was to be counted. As regards respondents 4 to 9, their places in the Combined Gradation List would be as follows:- Shri R.G. Dave:- Shown in Category II (Administrative) officiating incumbent at Serial No. 18, belonging to Mahakoshal region and the date of officiation in the post was shown as 29-6-1956, which was also the date fixed for counting his seniority. In that very Category, the 5th respondent, Shri S.C. Jain, is shown at Serial No 20, and the date of continuous officiation is shown to be 7-8-1956, which was also the date for counting his seniority. The name of the 6th respondent, Shri B.L. Goel, is shown at Serial No. 21, belonging to Mahakoshal region and the date from which his seniority was to be counted was shown as, 8-8-1956. Similarly, with respect to the 7th respondent, Dr. B.P. Argal, his name was shown at Serial No. 22, belonging to Mahakoshal region and the date of his officiation was shown from 2-8-1965 and his seniority was to be counted from 9-8 1956. The 8th respondent, B.D. Nayak, was shown at Serial No. 28, belonging to Vindhya Pradesh region. The date of his officiation was from 4-10 1956, which was also the date for counting of his seniority. The name of the 9th respondent, B. P. Shrivastava, is shown at Serial No. 16, in sub-Category (b) as a permanent incumbent in Category No. V ('Teaching) as belonging to Mahakoshal region and the date of his officiation was shown to be 28-6-1956, which was also the date for counting of his seniority. The name of the 9th respondent, B. P. Shrivastava, is shown at Serial No. 16, in sub-Category (b) as a permanent incumbent in Category No. V ('Teaching) as belonging to Mahakoshal region and the date of his officiation was shown to be 28-6-1956, which was also the date for counting of his seniority. Under the old rules prevailing in this Stale, there were three categories in the administrative branch of educational services. Upon integration by issuance of a Combined Gradation List, the Central Government abolished the third Category-administrative side and directed all posts on the administrative side to be divided into two Categories, namely, Category No. 1 and Category No. 2- Two notes were appended to the Combined Gradation List, which were as follows :- Note No. 1 :-An officiating/temporary person on confirmation will take his place in the gradation list of permanent employees with reference to the date of his continuous officiation without affecting inter se seniority in the State of origin. Note No. 2:-For comparing seniority for the purpose of filling the various vacancies including those in higher categories or for reversions arising after 1st November, 1956 no distinction will be made between permanent and non-permanent officers and the seniority will be determined as indicated in Note No. I above as if they are all permanent. 6. Thus, for the purpose of confirmation, officiating or temporary employees were to take their places in the list of permanent employees with reference to the date of their continuous officiation without affecting inter-se seniority in the State of origin, and for comparing seniority for the purpose of filling the various vacancies, including those in higher categories, the relevant date was 1-11-1956 and no distinction would be made between permanent and non-permanent officers and the seniority would be governed as indicated in Note No. 1. 7. By a common order, dated 5-12-1960, the petitioner, the fourth respondent, R.G. Dave and the fifth respondent, S. C. Jain and some others were promoted as Assistant Professors in the scale of Rs. 300-300-20-500-500-Bar-20-600 with effect from the date of taking over charge and they were posted at different places. 7. By a common order, dated 5-12-1960, the petitioner, the fourth respondent, R.G. Dave and the fifth respondent, S. C. Jain and some others were promoted as Assistant Professors in the scale of Rs. 300-300-20-500-500-Bar-20-600 with effect from the date of taking over charge and they were posted at different places. On the date of re-organisation of States, i.e. 1-11-1956, the respondents were in the administrative service, Class II, and the petitioner was in the teaching side, Category V. It is true that with respect to the date of continuous officiation, the petitioner was shown senior to the respondents in the Combined Gradation List. The question, therefore, will arise as to what would happen if the members of the administrative side, Category No. 11, are given promotions on the Teaching side. The posts in the administrative side and the Teaching side have been inter- changeable. But the exact point of dispute is whether the administrative side, Category No. II ought to have been equated with teaching side, Category No. V. It is to be noted that Teaching side, Category No. V. means the post of a lecturer. Teaching side Category No. IV means the post of an Assistant Professor, while Teaching side Category No. III means the post of a professor. 8. According to the petitioner, in practice and also by virtue of the directions given by the Central Government in pursuance of integration scheme, the inter-se seniority of the employees was not to be disturbed and the State Government was advised to frame rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for promotion of the employees in the integrated services. One of the contentions of the petitioner is that in the absence of tire necessary rules, the Director, by issuing the circular (Petitioner's Annexure-C), could not have given undue preference to the administrative side Category No. II, by equating it with Teaching side Category IV. According to the petitioner, it should have been equated with Teaching side Category No. V, and for the purposes of promotion, the Inter-se seniority as per the Combined Gradation List may be allowed to operate. However, by the circular letter (Annexure-C), which is impugned in the present write petition, the officers of administrative side Category No. I were equated with Teaching side Category No. III. However, by the circular letter (Annexure-C), which is impugned in the present write petition, the officers of administrative side Category No. I were equated with Teaching side Category No. III. That would be perfectly correct So far as the officers of the administrative side in Category No. II are concerned, they could not have been equated with Category No IV of the Teaching side. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out instances where persons in the administrative side Category No II were promoted to Teaching side Category No. IV. Thus, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Teaching side Category No. IV would be a promotion post and, therefore, administrative side Category No. II could not have been equated with the same That would be giving undue preference and seniority to the administrative side contrary to the scheme of the Combined Gradation Lis) and as such, this action would be in violation of section 115(7) of the Stares Re-organisation Act, 1956. 9. Thus, although the petitioner was senior to the respondents as per the final gradation list, which is issued on 26-5-1962 (Petitioner's Annexure-B), his further promotions were adversely affected on account of the circular letter (Petitioner's Annexure C) giving undue preference to members of the administrative side Category No. II, by equating them with Teaching side, Category No. IV. 10. It may be relevant to note further developments so far as promotions of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 were concerned. The petitioner had joined as an upper-division Teacher on 16-10-1946: He was confirmed in that post on 1-4-1952. In the year 1952 be passed his M. Ed. examination and on 28-6-1952, he was promoted as a lecturer for Diploma in Teaching. On 18-6-1956 he was promoted as Superintendent for Diploma in Teaching and he was a Class II gazetted officer on the salary of Rs. 225-225-250-15-400.............Respondents 4 to 7 were District Inspectors of Schools in Class II gazetted post on the same scale of pay. The 8th respondent, belonging to Vindhya Pradesh region was District Inspector of Schools on the same scale of pay, while the 9th respondent, belonging to the Madhya Bharat region, was a lecturer in Vocational Guidance Bureau. On 5-12-1960 the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 i.e. R.G. Dave and S.C. Jain were promoted as Assistant professors by a common order. The 8th respondent, belonging to Vindhya Pradesh region was District Inspector of Schools on the same scale of pay, while the 9th respondent, belonging to the Madhya Bharat region, was a lecturer in Vocational Guidance Bureau. On 5-12-1960 the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 i.e. R.G. Dave and S.C. Jain were promoted as Assistant professors by a common order. As such, they having become Assistant professors, belonging to Category IV of Teaching side, were classed as Class II upper gazetted officers. Previously their salary was Rs. 300 to 600; while according to the revised scale, it was Rs. 360 to 700. The 6th respondent, B.L. Goyal was promoted as Assistant Director of Public Instructions on 3-9-1960 in the same scale of pay, i.e. Rs. 360 to Rs. 700; while the 7th respondent, Dr. B.P. Argal was promoted as Principal, Multipurposes Higher Secondary School on 20-11-1963. As such, his promotion to Teaching side, Category No. IV, took place on that date. 11. It is also interesting to note that in pursuance of the said circular letter (Petitioner's Annexure-C), a Combined seniority list of officers of Education department was compiled as per the respondents' Annexure-R-6, and in that list, although the names of R.G. Dave, S.C. Jain, B.L. Goel, Dr. B.P. Argal and B.D. Nayak were shown, the petitioner's name was altogether omitted. According to the petitioner, this omission took place deliberately as the 6th respondent was attached to the office of the Director of Education at the relevant time, inspite of the fact that the petitioner had been promoted to Category No. IV, Teaching side, by the same order by which R.G. Dave and S.C. Jain had been promoted to Category No. IV, Teaching side. As such, they were shown in the said list as belonging to Category No. 11, administrative side, Category No. II, upper and administrative side, Category lower which was altogether ignored by the Director of public Instructions, while issuing the impugned circular. According to the petitioner, this was done deliberately with a view to give undue preference to the members of the administrative side. 12. Regarding this grievance of the petitioner, it was pointed out that the petitioner made various representations, but they were all turned down, as is clear from the letter, dated 4-10-1963 (Petitioner's Annexure-H) as also the petitioner's letter, dated 19-3-1966 (Petitioner's Annexure-P/1). 12. Regarding this grievance of the petitioner, it was pointed out that the petitioner made various representations, but they were all turned down, as is clear from the letter, dated 4-10-1963 (Petitioner's Annexure-H) as also the petitioner's letter, dated 19-3-1966 (Petitioner's Annexure-P/1). It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether the posts in Teaching side Category IV were promotion posts. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited attention to the order dated, 5-12-1960 (Petitioner's Annexure-D), whereby the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 were promoted as Assistant professors, Teaching side Category No. IV. Prior to tha, that, the petitioner was in the teaching side, Category V, while respondents 4 and 5 were in the administrative side, Category II. Similarly, attention was invited to the order, dated 2-11-1963 (Petitioner's Annexure-M), whereby the 7th respondent Dr. B.P. Argal, who was in the administrative side, Category No. 11, was promoted in the Teaching side. Category No. IV. Attention was further invited to the order, dated 24-7-1956, published in the M.P. Government Gazette, dated 3-8-1956 (Petitioner's Annexure-W), whereby Smt. Ayangar was transferred from the Teaching side to the administrative side. This would show that Teaching side, Category No. V, was considered to be equal to the administrative side, Category No. II, lower. Similar were the orders regarding Kumari S.D. Bhandaikar and K.P. Bose in the said document. Thus, the posts in the administrative side, Category II, lower were transferable with the Teaching side, Category No. V and actually, promotions had been made from the administrative side, Cetegory II, to the Teaching side, Category No. IV. There can be no doubt about this state of affairs and by an executive flat, administrative side, Category No. II, lower could not be equated with the Teaching side, Category No. IV. That would in our opinion, amount to giving undue preference to members of the administrative side contrary to section 115(7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, which would interfere with the seniority list fixed by the Central Government, as per the Combined Gradation List (Petitioner's Annexure 5). However, the further question is whether this matter would be justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. However, the further question is whether this matter would be justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In this behalf it is to be noted that it is always open to the Central Government of the State Government to frame service rules and to alter them suitably according to the exigencies of situation and no Government servant would have any vested right in the service rules or the service conditions except what might be safeguarded by the provisions of the Constitution and any statutory enactments. The violation of the provisions of the Constitution or the provisions of the statutory enactments only would, in our opinion, be justiciable. Otherwise, a Government servant would not be able to maintain an action in a Court of law. It is, therefore, necessary to see if either the provisions of the Constitutions or any of the provisions of the statutory enactments are violated. Similarly, if the State Government' or any of its officers are found to be acting contrary to the specific orders or directions given by the Central Government, such action can be Challenged on the ground that it would be ultra vires the powers of the State Government or its officers, as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in J.K: Pal v. State of M.P. 1988 JLJ 674: ILR 1958 MP 347: 1958 MPLJ 835. The final authority in the matter of integration being the Central Government, the State Government would not be permitted to do anything contrary to such specific orders or to the general scheme of integration framed by the Central Government. In that event also, the action of the State Government or any of its officers would be in excess of the powers conferred by the States Re-organisation Act, 1956. 14. In this connection it is relevant to take note of the law on the subject and the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in some cases, as also the pronouncement of certain High Courts. The learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, invited attention to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jogindersingh AIR 1963 SC 913 . The learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, invited attention to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jogindersingh AIR 1963 SC 913 . In that case the facts were that by an executive order, dated 27-9-1957, the Schools run by Municipal Boards and District Boards in the Ambala and Jullunder divisions in the Punjab were taken over by the Education department of the Punjab Government with effect 1-10-1957. The teachers employed in those schools were also takes over by the State Government and they were termed as 'provincialised' teachers. It was provided that they would be given the same grades of pay and other allowances as were given to their counterparts in Government service. The service rules governing the Government teachers were the Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre, Rules. On 13-2-1961 the Punjab Government promulgated the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, giving retrospective effect from 1-10-1957. The effect was that the provincialised teachers were treated as falling under a cadre separate and distinct from the teachers in the State Cadre and the second effect who that though the proportion of the lower grade teachers who would be promoted to higher grade was the same in both the cadres, it operated differently as regards the members in the two cadres. That was due to the fact that the Government decided that the provincialised teachers were to be a diminishing class which would become extinct in course of time, whereas a number equivalent to that which the provincial cadre lost by promotion, death or retirement was to be added to the State cadre. Under this scheme a member of a State Cadre stood a better chance of promition than did a teacher belonging to the provincialised cadre. The respondent's contention in that case was that the executive order, dated 17-9-1957, was violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships negatived those contentions and held that the two services started as independent services and merely because the teachers of the Municipal Boards and the District Boards had been absorbed in Government service and put in a separate cadre as provincialised cadre, they could not be given seniority over the other non-provincialised cadre. As such, there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. 15. As such, there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. 15. The learned Deputy Advocate General pointed out that the petitioner in the present case could have no grievance except on the basis of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, that question has not at all been raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not contended that the said order, dated 29-8-1962 (Petitioner's Annexure-C) violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Had that been the petitioner's contention, the said case of State of Punjab v. Jogindersingh (supra) might have been attracted. 16. Next we may advert to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in N. Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Commissioner AIR 1965 SC 136 . In that case the position was that the Mysore Government had framed the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959, under section 115 (7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956. The petitioner's contention in that case was that he was not governed by those rules as the conditions of service had been varied to his disadvantage. The second contention was that the Madras Government had, prior to 1-11-1956, by various orders, reduced the petitioner in rank in violation of Article 311(2) and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was selected by the Madras Public Service Commission as a lower division clerk under the Madras Ministerial Service Rules, 1949, and was allotted to the Revenue Department and posted in South Kanara District. He was promoted as upper-division clerk on 2-4-1956. According to the State, this promotion was on a temporary basis and, therefore, he was reverted and then again posted as a temporary upper-division clerk. In August, 1957, the petitioner's name was considered and included in the eligibility list. That list was regularised on 12-12-1957, in accordance with the Rules 39 (e) and 35 of the Madras State and Subordinate Service Rules with effect from 19-10-1957. The petitioner's contention was that this resulted in the Joss of benefit of service and increments. In the meantime, the re-organisation of States took place and South Kanara District except Kasaragod Taluk went to the new Mysore State and the petitioner was allotted to the Mysore State. The petitioner's contention was that this resulted in the Joss of benefit of service and increments. In the meantime, the re-organisation of States took place and South Kanara District except Kasaragod Taluk went to the new Mysore State and the petitioner was allotted to the Mysore State. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while negativing the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, held that Article 309 of the Constitution of India, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, gave full powers to a State Government to frame rules. The proviso to Section 115 (7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, limited that power, but that limitation, was removeble by the Central Government by giving its previous approval to making of rules by the State Government. Interpreting the phrase 'previous approval', their Lordship stated that the expression 'previous approval' in the proviso to section 115(7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, in the setting in which it was placed, included a general approval to the variation in the conditions of service within certain limits, indicated by the Union Government. Therefore, where the Central Government intimated the Mysore Government that after examining the various aspects of the question, they agreed with the State Government that it would not be appropriate to provide any protection in the matter of travelling allowance, discipline, control, classification, appeal, conduct, probation and departmental promotion, the State Government would be free to frame their own rules. Of course, the Central Government would have the power to impose the conditions or to provide for any safe-guards requiring the State Government to include those conditions or safe-guards in the service rules to be framed. Otherwise, the State Government would have the power to change the service rules. In that view, it was held that the Madras rule was inapplicable and the petitioner in that case was held to be governed by the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Re-cruitment Rules, 1959. That question does not arise in the present case. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh had not framed any service rules till the year 1961. It will therefore, be necessary to refer to the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. The petitioner's case has to be examined with reference to the 1961 rules only. 17. That question does not arise in the present case. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh had not framed any service rules till the year 1961. It will therefore, be necessary to refer to the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. The petitioner's case has to be examined with reference to the 1961 rules only. 17. In Rabindra Nath v. Union of India AIR 1975 SC 470, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down that the appointments to the post of Income-Tax Officers, Class I, Grade II Service and preparation of the seniority list of such officers under the sentiority Rules of 1949 and 1950, could not be made the subject-matter of an original writ petition in the Supreme Court on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the provisions of the Constitution could not be given retrospective effect: That is altogether a different proposition which does not arise for consideration in the present case. It is true that service rules or any action taken under the service rules can be challenged on the ground of violation of the provisions of the constitution or any other statutory provisions governing such services, such as the State Re-organisation Act, 1956. However, in the present case the petitioner's challenge is not on the ground of violation of Article 14 or Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. But it is necessarily on the ground that the impugned order (Petitioner's Annexure-C) is in violation of the statutory provisions as per section 115(7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956. 18 The Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited attention to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Vasant Jayaram Karnik AIR 1970 SC 2092 and urged that where a public servant's seniority is arbitrarily affected in the matter of selection or promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, such action of the State would be in violation of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. We may observe that the proposition propounded by us earlier would be in accord with the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this case. We may observe that the proposition propounded by us earlier would be in accord with the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this case. Therefore, it is necessary to examine if by the impugned order in the present case, any of the petitioner's rights, as granted by the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, or any specific orders passed by the Central Government have been violated. In that event only, the question of equality principle of service, under Article 16(1) of the Constitution might be relevant, but not till such violation is clearly established. 19. The learned consel for the petitioner also invited attention to the to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M.D. Shukin v. The State of Gujrat AlR 1971 SC 17. In that case it was laid down by their Lordships that a public servant allotted to another State in consequence of Re-organisation of States could not be affected in his earlier service conditions without the approval of the Central Government. That question also, in our opinion, does not at all arise as the State Government framed the requisite rules in the year 1961. Presently we propose to examine the relevant rules. But the exact question arising in the present case is whether in preparing the list for promotions to Class I service on the Teaching side mentioned as Category No. III, preference could be given to the administrative side, Category II, over the Teaching side, Category IV and the Teaching side Category V. It is not disputed that the list was prepared for the purpose in pursuance of the circular letter of the Director, dated 29-8-1962 (Petitioner's Annexure-C). Such list was prepared as per the respondent's Annexure R-6, in which preference was given to members of the administrative side, Category No. II and then the members of the Teaching side in Category No. IV were placed and the last of all were the members of the Teaching side in Category No. V. This, according to the petitioner, would interfere with the seniority as fixed by the Final Gradation List in pursuance of the integration scheme framed by the Central Government. Strangely enough, the petitioner's name is altogether omitted in that list. Strangely enough, the petitioner's name is altogether omitted in that list. The heading of the list shows that it was the Combined Seniority list of Officers of Education department, Category No. II, and Catagory No. IV A, B, C. It was because of the omission of the petitioner's name that he was denied all the promotions and he remained an Assistant Professor, while his juniors under the Combined Gradation List had not only been made Professors, but also as Divisional Superintendents of Education and Deputy Director of Education. 20. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned order contravenes Rules 7, 11 and 12 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) rules, 1961. Rules 7, 11 and 12 relate to methods of recruitment, promotion and seniority. It may be relevant to reproduce these rules, which are as follows:- Rule 7:-Methods of recruitment:-Candidates shall be selected for appointment to a service of post by one or more of the following methods. (i) direct recruitment; (ii) promotion; (iii) transfer of person or persons already employed in another service or post; Provided that the Commission shall be consulted before a person is appointed to a service or post if such consultation is necessary under Article 320 of the Constitution read with the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1957. Rule 11:-Gradation Lists prepared in connection with States Re-organisation:-Nothing in these rules shall have the effect of altering the seniority of a Government servant in the gradation list relating to his service prepared in pursuance of the provisions of the States Re organisation Act, 1956. Rule 12 :-Seniority : -The seniority of the members of a service of a distinct branch or group of posts of that service shall be determined in accordance with the following principles, viz: - (a) Direct recruits:-(i) The seniority of a directly recruited Government servant appointed on probation shall count during his probation from the date of his appointment. Rule 12 :-Seniority : -The seniority of the members of a service of a distinct branch or group of posts of that service shall be determined in accordance with the following principles, viz: - (a) Direct recruits:-(i) The seniority of a directly recruited Government servant appointed on probation shall count during his probation from the date of his appointment. Provided that if more than one persons have been selected for appointment on probation at the same time, the inter-se seniority of the persons so selected shall be according to the order of merit in which they were recommended for appointment by the Commission in those cases where the appointments are made after consulting the Commission, and according to the order of merit determined by the appointing authority at the time of selection in other cases. (ii) The same order of inter-se seniority shall be maintained on the confirmation of the normal period of probation. If, however, the period of probation of any direct recruits is extended, the appointing authority shall determine whether he should be assigned the same seniority as would have been confirmed on the expiry of the normal period of probation or whether he should be assigned a lower seniority. (b) Promoted Government Servants:-A promoted Government servant shall count his seniority from the date of his confirmation in the service to which he has been promoted and shall be placed in the gradation list immediately below the last confirmed member of that service but above all the probationers; Provided that where two or more promoted Government servants are confirmed with effect from the same date, the appointing authority shall determine their inter-se seniority in the service in which they are confirmed, with due regard to the order in which they were included in the merit list, if any, prepared for determining their suitability for promotion and their relative seniority in the lower service from which 'hey have been promoted. (c) Officiating Government servant: - The inter-se seniority of Government servants promoted to officiate in a higher service or a higher category of posts shall, during the period of their officiation, be the same as that in their substantive service or grade irrespective of the dates on which they began to officiate in the higher service or grade; Provided that :- (i) If they were selected for officiation from a list in which the names of Government servants considered suitable for trial in a promotion to the higher service or grade were arranged in order of merit, their inter se seniority shall be determined in accordance with the order of merit in such list: (ii) The seniority of a permanent Government servant appointed to officiate in another service or post by transfer shall be determined ad hoc by the appointing authority : Provided that the seniority proposed to be assigned to such Government servant shall be determined and intimated to him in the order of appointment, (iii) Where a permanent Government servant is reduced to a lower service, grade or category of posts, he shall rank in the gradation list of the latter service, grade or category of posts above all the others in that gradation list, unless the authority ordering such reduction by a special order indicates a different position in the gradation list for such reduced Government servant. (iv) Where an officiating Government servant is reverted to his substantive service or post, he shall revert to his position in that gradation list relating to his substantive appointment which he held before he was appointed to officiate in the other service or post." 21. It is pertinent to note that rule 11 specifically prohibits the State Government from altering the seniority of a Government servant in the Gradation list prepared in pursuance of the scheme of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956. As such, by such artificial equation made by the impugned order (Petitioner's Annexure C), the seniority as given by the Final Combined Gradation List could not be interfered with by placing the administrative side, Category No. II, even above the Teaching side, Category No. IV. As such, by such artificial equation made by the impugned order (Petitioner's Annexure C), the seniority as given by the Final Combined Gradation List could not be interfered with by placing the administrative side, Category No. II, even above the Teaching side, Category No. IV. If the Director had equated the administrative side, Category No. II with the Teaching tide, Category V and maintained the inter-se seniority as conferred by the Final Combined Gradation List, the petitioner may not have had any grievance But it was this action of the Director which was not only contrary to rule 11 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, but also in violation of section 115 (7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956. Rule 11 of the said service rules was a bar against interfering with the seniority as per the final integration list prepared with the approval of the Central Government. It is true that the State Government could frame any rules and could even alter them. If the alteration of the rules be to the disadvantage of the public servant, then only the approval of the Central Government would be necessary. The 1961 rules of the State were in accord with the provisions of sections 115(7) and 117 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, as there was a specific prohibition against interfering with the seniority conferred by the Final Combined Gradation List. Such seniority could not be interfered with by issuing a circular letter, dated 29-8-1962 (Petitioner's Annexure-C) whereby an unwarranted and unjustified seniority was given to the administrative side, Category No. III, over the Teaching side, Category v. As such, we are of the opinion that the impugned circular letter was not only in contraveution of rule 11 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, but also in violation of the provisions of section 115 (7) and section 117 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956. Therefore, there would be much substance in the petitioner's contention that this was deliberately done with a view to give undue advantage to the members of the administrative side over the members of the Teaching side. Therefore, there would be much substance in the petitioner's contention that this was deliberately done with a view to give undue advantage to the members of the administrative side over the members of the Teaching side. If members of the administrative side, Category No. II, were actually being promoted to the Teaching side, Category IV, it is un- understandable as to how by the impugned circular letter (Petitioner's Annexure-C), administrative side, Category II, could be equated with the Teaching side, Category IV. Not only that, but while preparing the list in accordance with the circular letter, the administrative side. Category No. II, was even placed above the Teaching side, Category No. IV. This was absolutely an unjustified and illegal action on the part of the authorities of the Education department, which caused immense prejudice to the present petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that he was promoted as Assistant Professor, i.e. Category No. IV on the Teaching side either at the same time or prior to some of the respondents and by these devious tactics adopted by some members of the administrative side, the petitioner has remained a mere Assistant Professor, while the respondents have become not only Professors, but also Divisional Superintendent of Education and Deputy Director, which post would be equivalent to Class J post. i.e., administrative side, Category No. I or Teaching side, Category No. III. It is, therefore, necessary that the said circular letter be quashed as being ultra vires the powers of the Director of Public Instructions. 22. In this connection we may refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in G.N. Tiwari and others v. The State of M.P. and another Misc. Petition No 467 of 1968, decided on the 29th August 1970. In that case the list of seniority prepared by the State Government disturbed the seniority as conferred by the integration scheme, although a foot-note was appended. The petitioner in that case complained of his seniority according to the Final Gradation List being disturbed by the action of the State Government. A Division Bench of this Court, presided over by B. Dayal, C.J. and A.P. Sen, J. quashed the list prepared and directed the State Government to prepare a fresh list in accordance with the Combined List and M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. A Division Bench of this Court, presided over by B. Dayal, C.J. and A.P. Sen, J. quashed the list prepared and directed the State Government to prepare a fresh list in accordance with the Combined List and M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. We may observe that the present case is more or less skin to the said Division Bench case and, therefore, the impugned order in the present case deserves to be quashed. As to what course the State Government may adopt, would be another matter for the State Government to devise under the particular circumstances of the case. 23. The learned Deputy Advocate General produced the confidential file before us in order to show that the order, dated 29-8-1962 (Petitioner's Annexure-C), although issued under the signature of the Director of Public Instructions, had been approved by a Minister on behalf of the State Government-. In our opinion, it will make no difference, whether it be an order of the Director of Public Instructions or an order of the State Government. Even if it were to be assumed to be an order of the State Government in its administrative capacity, it will still be in contravention of rule 11 of the Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, read with sections 115 (7) and 117 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, as leaving apart an administrative order, even if a rule were to be framed interfering with the seniority as conferred by the Final Gradation List in pursuance of integration scheme framed by the Central Government, sanction of the Central Government would be necessary. It is not even alleged on behalf of the State that such sanction was obtained. Consequently, any order issued by the Director of Public Instructions ordering compilation of a seniority list for promotion to the posts of Teaching side, Category III, cannot have the effect of disturbing the senoirity list, as per the Final Gradation List and the promotion ought to have been in accordance with the said Final Gradation List. Consequently, any order issued by the Director of Public Instructions ordering compilation of a seniority list for promotion to the posts of Teaching side, Category III, cannot have the effect of disturbing the senoirity list, as per the Final Gradation List and the promotion ought to have been in accordance with the said Final Gradation List. Under these circumstances, the proper course for the Director or the State Government was to equate the Administrative side, Category II with the Teaching side, Category No. V, by maintaining the inter se seniority between the employees as conferred by the Final Gradation List and while making the promotion to the Teaching side Class III, the members of the Teaching side, Category No. IV, should have been placed at the top and administrative side, Category No. II and the Teaching side, Category V, should have been bracketed together by maintaining the seniority as conferred by the Final Gradation List That course would not hive violated rule 11 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rule, or section 115(7) or section 117 of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956. But the impugned order, it appears, was deliberately manipulated as the 6th respondent, B.L. Goel was attached to the office of the Director of Public Instructions and it was under his signatures that the said circular letter (Petitioner's Annexure-C) was issued. It may be that the order may have been passed by the Director of Public Instructions even with the approval of the Minister concerned of the State Government, but that will make no difference as the order clearly is illegal in which the members of the administrative side, Category No. II, although bracketed with Teaching side, Category IV, have been given preference even over the Teaching side, Category No. IV, although Teaching side Category IV was considered to be a promotion from the administrative side, Category No. II. This has resulted in undue and unwarranted promotions in favour of respondents 4 to 9 and it was rather unfortunate that by this device, the petitioner was denied his due promotion. 24. Another argument advanced on behalf of the respondents 5, 6 and 9 was that promotions have already been made to higher posts and it would not be proper to interfere with those promotions after such a long time. We are not concerned with the effect. 24. Another argument advanced on behalf of the respondents 5, 6 and 9 was that promotions have already been made to higher posts and it would not be proper to interfere with those promotions after such a long time. We are not concerned with the effect. It may be that the State Government may not like to disturb these promotions, but the unfortunate part of the situation is that the petitioner has been denied his due promotions unwarrantedly and illegally. It is open to the State Government to do justice to the petitioner in this behalf even without disturbing the promotions given to respondents 4 to 9. However, that is not our concern. We are merely concerned with the legality or otherwise of the impugned order (Petitioner's Annexure-C) and we would have no hesitation in quashing it as being illegal and ultra vires the powers of the Director of Public Instructions or the State Government, and leave the matter there to be worked out by the State Government. Under these circumstances, we would allow this petition by quashing the impugned order with costs. Counsel's fee in this Court shall be Rs. 200/- , or as per the certificate, whichever be less. The costs shall be borne by the first and the second respondents to the extent of half, while the remaining costs shall be borne by respondents 4 to 9. There shall be no order as to costs vis-a-vis the petitioner and the third respondent. The security deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him.