JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the second time, the petitioners are approaching this Court for relief under Article 226. ( 2 ) THE petitioners originally entered Madras Forest Service as assistant Conservators of Forests. Consequent on the reorganisation of states in 1956, they were allotted to the State of Mysore. Ever since then, they have been agitating for a proper equation of their posts and determination of their seniority in the Inter-State Seniority List. They are now aggrieved by the rankings given to them in the Final Inter-State seniority List of the Gazetted Officers in the Forest Deparment published in the Notification dt 9th May 1969 (published in the Mysore Gazette. dated May 9, 1969 ). ( 3 ) TO understand the problem presented, we have to state the facts in a little mure detail. S. Shyam Sunder, the petitioner in WP. 4102/69 was selected by the Madras Public Service Commission as Assistant Con servator of Forests. Be was recruited on 21-3-1953 under Rule 2 (a) of the special Rules of the Madras Forest Service. The said post carried the pay scale of Rs. 300 to. 700. He joined duty on 31-3-1953. He was sent for training at the Indian Forest College Dehra Dun. During the period of training, he was paid a stipend of Rs. 110 and, not the pay of this post. After the training he joined duty on 5-4-55 from which date alone, he began to enjoy the pay of his post. He was allotted to the State of Mysore as a probationer. The Government of Mysore by their notification dt. 25-6-1958 declared that he completed satisfactorily his probationary period on 31-5-1958. ( 4 ) K. Rama Gowda, the petitioner in WP. 766 71 was also a direct recruit as a probationary Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Madras forest Service. On 7-3-1951, he was appointed by the erstwhile State of madras. Ho was thereafter deputed for training at the Dehra Dun Forest college. After the training he joined duty on 10-4-1953. Like Shyam sunder he was also paid stipend during the period of training and he began to enjoy the minimum pay of his post, with effect from 10-4-1953. Consequent on the re-organisaltion of States, he was allotted to the State of Mysore as a District Forest Officer of Kollegal Forest Division. After the training he joined duty on 10-4-1953. Like Shyam sunder he was also paid stipend during the period of training and he began to enjoy the minimum pay of his post, with effect from 10-4-1953. Consequent on the re-organisaltion of States, he was allotted to the State of Mysore as a District Forest Officer of Kollegal Forest Division. His parent State did not pass any order declaring the completion of his probationary period. It was only by 'the notification dt. 2-7-1960 issued by the State of Mysore, the said declaration was made as on 11-7-1956. ( 5 ) FOR the purpose of integration of pests allotted from different states, the state of Mysore equated the posts of Assistant Conservator of forest of Madras with those of 'the Senior Assistant Conservator and assistant Conservator of Forests of Mysore. The provisional Inter State seniority List dt. 26-3-1957 was prepared by the State of Mysore, in which rama Gowda was placed at Serial No. 38 among the Class I (Divisional forest Officers) and Shyam Sunder was ranked at SI. No. 6 among the class II (Sub-Divisional Forest Officers) of the Officers of the Forest department This was followed by the preparation of what was termed as -the Final Inter-State Seniority List published by the notification dt. 24-2-1960. Therein both Rama Gowda and Shyam Sunder were placed at SI. Nos. 2 and 7 respectively, in the cadre of the Assistant Conservators of forests. By the said equation, the petitioners were very much aggrieved. While challenging the same. Rama Gowda filed WP,2316|1963 and Shyam sunder WP. 2574/1963, in this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the State of Mysore, as per the decision of the Government of India published another final Inter-State Seniority List dt. 2-5-1964. In that list, the petitioners were included in Category IV at SI. Nos. 24 and 30 respectively. They were given seniority from the respective dates on which they first joined duty as Assistant Conservator of Forests. But the equation remained the same. In all the above stated lists, the respondents 13 to 17 were ranked be law the petitioners, as their juniors. The final inter-State Seniority list dt. 2-5-1964 was the subject of many writ petitions filed in this Court. But the equation remained the same. In all the above stated lists, the respondents 13 to 17 were ranked be law the petitioners, as their juniors. The final inter-State Seniority list dt. 2-5-1964 was the subject of many writ petitions filed in this Court. All these petitions together with the said petitions filed by Shyam Sunder and Rama Gowa came up for cons ideration and were disposed off by a common order dt. 26th March 1955 in G. M. Shankariah v. Union of India (1965) 2 Mys. L. J. 40. During the argument in the said cases, learned Attorney General who appeared for the Government of india said that the impugned decision of the Government of India was only a provisional one. and before coming to a final decision the Government of India have to examine the representations of the petitioners with the assistance of an advisory committee. Acoepting the said contention, hegde. J. (as he then was) said : for these reasons, we accept the contentions of the learned attorney General that the impugned decision of the Central govt. though purports to be a final decision is really a provisional decision. The affected persons have a right to make representations against it. The represetations made by them will have to be considered by the Central Government with the assistance of the Advisory committee and thereafter the Central Government should arrive at a final decision. " the learned Judge in the concluding para of the order further said: for the reasons mentioned above, though we refuse to grant the reliefs prayed for in these petitions, at the same time, we direct the central Government to give the petitioners an opportunity to make representations against the equation of posis proposed, consider their objections with the aid of the Advisory Committee and thereafter arrive at a final decision as regards the integration in dispute. ( 6 ) AGAINST the said decision of this Court the Union of India preferred appeals to the Supreme Court, in Union of India v. G. M. Shankariah c. A. 1439 and 1446/67 The Supreme Court upheld the decision of this Court and dismissed the appeals with an observation that the direction given by this Court that the Government of India should give an opportunity to make representations and that it should consider them with the aid of the Advisory committee and thereafter arrive at its final decision must be limited to the petitioners then before the High Court, whose writ petitions were heard and disposed off. It may be relevarit to state that in all ten writ petitions including that of the present petitioners, were heard and disposed off by this Court. The Supreme Court gave further time for the said petitioners to make their representations to Government of India. Pursuant there to Rama Gowda and Shyam Sundar filed their representations inter alia contending that the posts of Assistant Conservators from Madras should be equated with that of the Deputy Conservators from Hyderabad and Bombay. ( 7 ) INTERRUPTING the narration we have to state one other fact, which was the beginning of another trouble to the petitioners. The Government of Mysore, by their notification dt. 17/l8-4-1969 called upon Shyam Sunder and one other, to show cause why they should not be included in a separate category below Category IV, under the head Probationers. It appears that the said notification was issued at the instance of the Government of India. They were asked to file their objections to the Secretary to the Government of India, within one month from the date of the receipt of the notification. On 8-5-1969 Shyam Sundar submitted a detailed representation opposing the said proposal. Before the receipt of the said repre the Government of India took a decision on the earlier representations of the petitioners and communicated the same to them by their letter dt. 25-4-1969 stating thus : 16. Shri K. Rama Gowda (17) Shri S. Shyam Sunder. Their representations for equaticu of post of Assistant Conservator of Founts from Madras with the posts of Deputy Conservators of Forests from Bombay and Hyderabad may be rejected. 25-4-1969 stating thus : 16. Shri K. Rama Gowda (17) Shri S. Shyam Sunder. Their representations for equaticu of post of Assistant Conservator of Founts from Madras with the posts of Deputy Conservators of Forests from Bombay and Hyderabad may be rejected. These two officers, who were probationers on 31st October, 1956 were presumably enjoying the scale of pay of Assistant Conservators and drawing increments in that scale; there need, therefore, be no objection to their being shown in the seniority list with reference to their continuous length of service in the equated grade. " ( 8 ) FINALLY, the Government of Mysore published the impugned final inter-State Seniority List dt. 9-5-1969 placing Rama Gowda at SI. No. 39 in category IV. His continuous length of service in the equated grade was counted from 11-7-1956 the date on which he completed his probationary period. Shyam Sunder was placed immediataely below all the persons in Category IV. He was shown as a probationer apparently with no benefit of his continuous length of service, though counted from 31-3-1953. The respondents 13 to 17 were ranked above the petitioners. ( 9 ) THE first contention for the petitioners was that the preparation. of the impugned list was not according to the decision of the Government of India. The second conitention was that the petitioners are entitled to count for their seniority the period commencing from the dates on which they first joined duties as Assistant Conservators of Forests. The third and the last contention was regarding the correctness of the equation of posts held by the petitioners. One other contention urged on behalf of rama Gowda was that he was kicked down in the impugned seniority list without affording him any opportunity. For the respondents, it was urged that the petitioners were allotted as probationers and, they were not permanent members in the cadre. They did not draw the pay of their posts during their probationary period and that the Government of India have taken a decision not to count probationary period for the seniority of the allottees while preparing the Inter State seniority list. As per that decision, the impugned list was said to have been prepared. They did not draw the pay of their posts during their probationary period and that the Government of India have taken a decision not to count probationary period for the seniority of the allottees while preparing the Inter State seniority list. As per that decision, the impugned list was said to have been prepared. ( 10 ) WE have perused the relevant records, which were placed before us by Sri Puttaswami learned Government Advocate It is not correct to state that the State Government, without authority of the Government of india, issued the notification dated 17/18-4-1969 calling upon Shyam sunder and one other to show cause why they should not be included in a separate category under the heading "probationers. ( 11 ) WE pass then to the first contention for the petitioners. For this we should refer to the decision of the Government of India. On the question of equation of the pests of Assistant Conservator of Forests from Madras with the posts of the Deputy Conservator of Forests from Bombay and hyderabad, 'the Government of India did not agree. On the question of seniority, they said that the petitioners were probationers on 31-10-1956. They further said that they have no objection for the petitioners being shown in the seniority list with reference to their continuous length of service in the equated grade provided they were enjoying the scale of pay of Assistant Conservators and drawing increments in that scale. The government of India never said that the petitioners should get their seniority from the date on which they first joined the posts of Assistant conservators of Forests. The Government of India also never said that the entire probationary peried should not count for the petitioners' seniority. The decision of the Government of India, as it appears to us is that the petitioners should be given seniority in the equated grade from the date on which they enjoyed the pay of the posts of Assistant Conservators of forests. That decision was binding upon the Government of Mysore. With that, we examine whether the Government of Mysore followed the said decision in preparing the impugned list. From the facts above narrated, it is seen that Rama Gowda began to enjoy the pay in the scale of his post (i. e. , Rs. 300 to 700) with effect from 10-4-1953, whereas Shyam sunder began to do so from 5-4-1955. With that, we examine whether the Government of Mysore followed the said decision in preparing the impugned list. From the facts above narrated, it is seen that Rama Gowda began to enjoy the pay in the scale of his post (i. e. , Rs. 300 to 700) with effect from 10-4-1953, whereas Shyam sunder began to do so from 5-4-1955. These facts are admitted before us by counsel on both sides. If that be the admitted position, the petitioners should have been ranked in appropriate places in Category IV of the impugned list, with reference to the said dates as the dates of commencement of their service in the equated grade. But we find it was not done. The impugned list is, therefore ex-facie contrary to the said decision of the government of India. ( 12 ) WE turn from that, to the second contention, whether the petitioners have a right to count for their seniority the period commencing from the date when they first joined duties as Assistant Conservators of forests. For the respondents, it was urged that the petitioners were probationers and the Government of India have taken a uniform decision to exclude the probationory period of the allottees while integrating their services. We do not think that the question before us could be decided on the basis of an alleged uniform decision of the Government of India, It cannot also be determined on the allegations and counter allegations of the parties. In our view, it has got to be resolved with reference to the rules regulating the petitioners' recruitment and their conditions of service. Conscious of the limitations of judicial review, in cases of this nature, we proceed to examine the relevant rules. Mr. T. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for Shyam Sunder referred to us the Madras State and Subordinate services Rules, and in particular Rule 35 therein. The said rule provides: 15. Seniority.-- (a) The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. The said rule provides: 15. Seniority.-- (a) The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under Rule 10 (a) (iv), 10 (d), 16, 39 (d) or 44 (d), his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation. " the said rule, if it is applicable to the case of the petitioners, does support them. But they are general rules applicable to all subordinate services in the eratwhile Madras State, if there is nothing to the contrary in the special rules of recruitment to any particular post or grade. The petitioners belonged to the Madras Forest Service. There were separate rules governing the said service (See Madras Services Manual - Vol. 11, page 72 ). Under Section 35; Rule 6 of the said Rules provides:"6. Training.- (a) A probationary Assistant Conservator appointed by direct recruitment other than a candidate appointed on the successful completion of the Second Year Course of the Superior Forest service Course shall, in the first instance undergo practical training for a period of one year under a District Forest Officer. On the satisfactory completion of such training he shall undergo a special course of study for a period of two years at the Forest College at Dehra Dun or Coimbatore, as the case may be. If any probationer is prevented by sickness or any other adequate cause from appearing at the final examination at Dehra Dun or Coimbatore, as the case may be, at the end of the course, the State Government may allow him to appear at the next final examination in which case the period of his probation specified in R. 5 shall be deemed to be extended by a period equivalent to the interval between the examinations aforesaid. (b) He shall, during the period of his training under a District forest Officer, be paid a fixed travelling allowance of Rs. 25 a month he shall not be entitled to any pay while undergoing the training and the course of study prescribed in this rule. (b) He shall, during the period of his training under a District forest Officer, be paid a fixed travelling allowance of Rs. 25 a month he shall not be entitled to any pay while undergoing the training and the course of study prescribed in this rule. He shall however, be paid a stipend at such rate as the State Government may, from time to time, sanction during the course of study sit the forest College at dehra Dun or Coimbatore as the case may be. He shall begin to draw pay from the date he joins his appointment in the State after successfully completing the said course of atudy. He shall be granted in respect of the journeys performed by him while undergoing the course of study prescribed in this rule, actual expenses as authorized by the rules relating to the said course of study, and also travelling allowance for joining his appointment to this State after successfully completing the course, limited to a single second-class railway fare and in addition a single mileage for any journey by road. " "rule 8 Seniority.-The seniority of a direatly recruited Assistant conservator shall be determined by the date of his passing the examination held by the Forest College, Dehra Dun or Coimbatore, as the case may be Where such date is the same in the case of two or more such members, their seniority inter se shall be determined by their rank in the pass list issued by the college. " ( 13 ) MR. Krishna Rao contended that the said Rule 8 provides the procedure for fixing the inter-se seniority amongat the directly recruited assistant Conservators of Forestts and it does not provide for the determination of their initial seniority. He said that the initial seniority should be determined only as per Rule 35 of the Madras State and Subordinate services Rules. ( 14 ) A close examination of Rule 8. does not support the contention. It specifically states that the seniority of directly recruited. Assistant conservator of Forests shall be determined by the date of his passing the examination held by the Forest College at Dehra Dun or Coimbatore. It further states that when such date is the same in the case of two or more such members, their seniority inter-se shall be determined by their rank in the pass list issued by the College. It further states that when such date is the same in the case of two or more such members, their seniority inter-se shall be determined by their rank in the pass list issued by the College. The said Rule, as it appears to us not only determines the initial seniority of the directly recruited Assistant conservators of Forests, but also their inter-se seniority when the date of passing the examination becomes the same. To confine the operation of the rule only to determine the inter-se seniority of the direct recruits, is to completely overlook the first part of the rule. In our view, this rule alone determines the initial seniority of the directly recruited assisant Conservators of Forests like the petitioners and, not Rule 35 of the Madras State and Subordinate Services Rules. ( 15 ) OUR view finds confirmation from the provisions of Rule 6 of the madras Forest Services Rules. During the period. of probation in the forest College at Dehra Dun, the petitioners were not allowed to draw the pay of their posts. They began to draw the minimum pay in the pay scale only when they joined duty after their training at Dehra Dun College. Shyam Sunder so joined on 5-4-1955 and Rama Gowda on 10-4-1953. It is perhaps for this reason that the Government of India also stated that the petitioners though probationers on 31-10-1956 should be given seniority with reference to their continuous length of service in the equated grade provided they were enjoying the scale of pay of Assistant Conservators. This decision was in accordance with the said' Rule 8 of the Madras Forest service Rules and not in derogation of it. We, therefore reject the second contention for the petitioners. ( 16 ) THE third and the last contention was regarding the validity of the equation of posts. The posts of the petitioners were equated with the assistant Conservators and Sub-Assistant Conservators of Forests from old Mysore. The petitioners contended that their posts should have been equated with the Deputy Conservators of Forests from Bombay and hyderabad areas. This point, in our opinion, is concluded against the petitioners by the decision of this Court in C. Maheswarappa v. Union of india (1971) 2 Mys. L. J. 539. In that case, the validity of the same order of equations came up for consideration. This point, in our opinion, is concluded against the petitioners by the decision of this Court in C. Maheswarappa v. Union of india (1971) 2 Mys. L. J. 539. In that case, the validity of the same order of equations came up for consideration. The Assistant Conservators of Forests of the old Mysore who stood allotted to the new State of Mysore challenged the said order of equation. Their case was that their posts should have been equated with those of Deputy Conservator of Forests of the erstwhile State of Bombay and Hyderabad and not with the Sub assistant Conservators. This Court rejected their contention upholding the said order of equation. That decision is binding on us and following the same, we reject the third contention also. ( 17 ) IN the result, we allow these petitions, quash the rankings assigned to the petitioners, with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refix their seniority taking into consideration the date 5-4-1955 for Shyam Sunder and, 10-4-1953 for Rama Gowda as the date of their commencement of continuous length of service in the equated grade, after giving opportunities to the officials who are likely to be affected by such refixation. ( 18 ) TIME for compliance four months. ( 19 ) PEITIONERS are ientitled to their costs from Respondent 2. Advocate fee Rs. 100 in each. --- *** --- .