JUDGMENT P. Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. These appeals are taken by the petitioners from the common judgment of Isaac, J. in ten Original Petitions that were heard along with O.P. No. 5165 of 1972, dismissing the petitions. The question that was raised in the Original Petitions was that the Special Rules that had been framed by Ext. P-2 (in O.P. No. 5165 of 1972) and made applicable to the members of the Kerala Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service was violative of the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (for short, the Act). To understand the contentions a few facts have to be stated. 2. The petitioners were persons either allotted from the Travancore-Cochin State or the Madras State to Kerala on the formation of the Kerala State by the Act. Those that came from Madras were called 'Deputy Surveyors' and that from Travancore-Cochin were known as 1st Grade Surveyors'. They were equated for the purpose of integration. Different test qualifications had been prescribed for the personnel in Travancore-Cochin and Madras States for promotion from the above categories to that of Head Surveyors. By Ext. P-2 Rules additional tests were introduced and by virtue of rule 13A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 the petitioners were entitled to a period of two years to pass those tests. Ext. P-3 order produced along with the Original Petition granted two more years. This was subsequently extended by Ext. P-5 giving a further concession; they were given time till they got eight chances, which amounted to a further period of 3 more years. The petitioners did not succeed in passing the tests within the four years provided by Ext. P-3. The concession granted by Ext. P-5 was cancelled by Ext. P-7 order and the Original Petitions have been filed challenging Ext. P-7. The learned Judge as already stated dismissed the petitions. 3. Three questions were formulated for consideration: (i) Were the petitions belated? (ii) Whether the previous approval of the Central Government as required by the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 115 of the Act had actually been obtained? (iii) Whether there has been violation of the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 115 in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raghavendra Rao v. Dy. Commissioner (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 136)? 4. (iii) Whether there has been violation of the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 115 in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raghavendra Rao v. Dy. Commissioner (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 136)? 4. Isaac, J. found that the petitions were belated. It was also held that the principles of the decision in Raghavendra Rao v.Deputy Commissioner, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 136 would apply and hence there was no violation of the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 115 of the Act. No views were expressed on the second question. 5. We consider it unnecessary to deal with the third point in the appeals in view of our conclusions on points 1 and 2. The petitions were belated, and previous approval of the Central Government had been obtained before Ext. P-2 introducing new tests was promulgated. 6. Dealing with the question of delay, Isaac J., after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in M.K. Krishnaswamy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1168 and after reading a passage from the judgment therein observed as follows:” "The claim put forward by the petitioners before me is not as stale as the one before the Supreme Court. But the principle stated therein would apply to these cases as well. The Special Rules which the petitioners now attack were published as early as on 4th October 1966. Then they raised no objection to the additional tests prescribed by the Rules. They sat for the tests availing of the period of four years which they had to pass then, got themselves temporarily promoted, and also took advantage of the extension of the period as per the Government Order, Ext. P-5, until it was subsequently cancelled by Ext. P-7; and now they should not be allowed to turn round and attack the validity of the tests prescribed by the Rules, in which they have acquiesced all these years." 7. Weighty reasons have thus been stated for holding that the petitions were belated. They were filed years after Rules had been framed imposing tests and after taking advantage of those Rules and getting promoted. This ground is enough to dismiss these appeals. But there is a stronger point in favour of the respondents, and we think we must decide this point as well, because they may have application to other cases as well. They were filed years after Rules had been framed imposing tests and after taking advantage of those Rules and getting promoted. This ground is enough to dismiss these appeals. But there is a stronger point in favour of the respondents, and we think we must decide this point as well, because they may have application to other cases as well. We, therefore, directed he Government Pleader to file before this Court the correspondence which led up to the passing of the order Ext. P-3, on which it was said that the Rules Ext. P-2 were based. An affidavit has now been filed producing four documents, Exts. H-1, H-2, H-3 and H-4. We admitted these documents and marked them accordingly. Ext. H-1 would show that the Government of India as early as 3rd December 1963 wrote to the State Government pointing out the necessity of complying with certain conditions before the introduction of new tests for promotion. Such new tests, it was pointed out, should be introduced only subject to the following conditions: "(1) Additional time, which may be double that of the ordinarily permissible time for passing the test may be allowed to the allotted employees, in cases where tests of a higher standard are prescribed or where tests were not prescribed in the parent State. (2) The penalties for not passing the tests should be held in abeyance during the additional time given under (1) above. In other words, the benefits like increments, promotion, etc. should not be withheld merely because an allotted employee had not passed the departmental tests. (3) Persons of the age of 45 years or more should be exempted from passing the departmental tests and when so exempted, they should be eligible for all benefits equally with the one who has passed the tests." 8. The State Government replied by Ext. H-2 dated 1st December 1965 and a draft of the order proposed to be passed by the State Government, Ext. H-3, dated 6th October 1965 was also forwarded to the Central Government along with Ext. H-2. By Ext. H-2 the views of the Central Government regarding the promulgation of an order in terms of Ext. H-3 were sought by the Kerala State and the reply of the Central Government is Ext. H-4. Ext. H-4 categorically stated that the Government of India had no objection to the proposal of the State Government. H-2. By Ext. H-2 the views of the Central Government regarding the promulgation of an order in terms of Ext. H-3 were sought by the Kerala State and the reply of the Central Government is Ext. H-4. Ext. H-4 categorically stated that the Government of India had no objection to the proposal of the State Government. The conditions which the Central Government wanted to introduce and which have been formulated in Ext. H-1, which we have extracted, are contained in the draft Ext. H-3 as well as in the order Ext. P-3. Ext. P-3 order has been replaced by Ext. P-2, the rules framed. There can, therefore, be little doubt that prior approval of the Central Government in regard to the introduction of particular tests had been obtained and the provision in the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 115 of the Act has been complied with. It has therefore become unnecessary to deal with point 3. 9. However, before parting with this case, it is necessary to say that there is an apparent conflict between the judgment under appeal and the judgment of this Bench in O. P. No. 85 of 1971. The judgment of this Bench has not been referred to by Isaac, J., and the judgment in O. P. No. 85 of 1971 does not refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Subba Rao v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 69 which has been relied on by Isaac, J. The question whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Subba Rao v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 69 the Division Bench decision in O.P. No. 85 of 1971 should be reconsidered does not arise in this case. But we think this matter will have to be settled very soon in other cases. The question will be of importance; we are informed that the matter is likely to come up before us again very soon and so we defer the consideration of this question till it comes up again. 10. We dismiss these appeals. There will be no order as to costs.