Judgment :- VEERASAWMI 1. It seems to us that the order of the learned Judge is correct. He struck down the amendment to R. 143 as illegal. The question in the appeal turns on seniority and that, again, will depend upon the validity of the amendment to R. 143 of Manual of Standing Orders R. 143, as it stood before the amendment in 1956, read as follows: “Subject to the conditions in paragraph 139 and subject also to the right of the appointing authoity to make any special promotion in accordance with paragraph 144, Clerks or Divisional Accountants eligible for appointment to the subordinate accounts service shall ordinarily be selected for appintment to the subordinate accounts service in the order of the date of their passing the examination, but in order to allow for length of service and experience, every three complete years of the excess in length of service (either as a clerk in the Audit office or a Divisional Accountant or an Accounts clerk in a Divisional or sub divisional Office of the Public Works Department (should be treated as compensating for one years delay in passing the examination; Provided that the relative seniority of those who complete the S.A.S. examination held in may 1950 and onwards, should be fixed treating every 1 years of the excess in length of service, as compensating for half years delay in passing the S.A.S. Examination.” The weightage contemplated by this Rule was deleted with effect from 1956. The respondent who was the petitioner, contended that the amendment to the rule was only made by the Auditor General and not by the President, and therefore, it would not operate as as Rule. That contention was accepted by the learned Judge. 2. Art. 148(1) of the Constitution says: that there shall be a Comptroller and Auditor General of India who shall be appointed by the President in the manner mentioned therein. Sub-cl. (5) of this Article states that, subject to the provistions of the Constitution and of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service of persons serving in the Indian Audit and Account Department and the administrative powers of the comptroller and Auditor General shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the President after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is not disputed that the amendment to P. 143 was administratively rules made by, the Comptroller and Auditor General and it was not framed as a rule by the President in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General. The amendment, therefore, cannot have the force of a rule framed by the President. 3. But then the contention before the learned Judge was that R. 143 itself was not statutory in character. At that time, it was admitted in the pleading as to the statutory character of the rule and the learned Judge relied on it. Apart from that, we have ourselves examined the position and found that rule 143 was statutory in character. The rule existed even prior to 1919. S. 96-D of the Government of India Act, 1919 was somewhat similar to Art. 148(1) and (S) of the Constitution. Sub-s. (4) of S. 96 specifically declared that all rules or other provisions in operation at the time of passing of the Government of India Act 1919 were made in accordance with the powers in that behalf and were confirmed. That means that R. 143, which was in operation at the relevant time, was declared at duly framed in accordance with the powers on that behalf and confirmed as a rule. The rule, therefore, became statutory. It follows, therefore, that the learned Judge was right in his view that the amendment of 1956 dispensing with the weightage, had no validity. 4. It is contended by Mr. Dolia for one of the appellant that R. 139 and 140 control R. 143. We are unable to agree. The subject matter of R. 139 and 140 are different. They do not deal with weightage, That was the view of the learned Judge, with which we agree. 5. It follows that the appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs.