JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to the integration of Deputy Collectors and equivalent officers serving in different units of the State of Madhya Pradesh prior to 1st November 1956. The petitioners were Extra-Assistant Commissioners in Mahakoshal region of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners were promotees and were working in officiating capacity. The post of Extra-Assistant commissioner is equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector. Respondents 3 to 29 also belong to the Mahakoshal region of the erstwhile Slate of Madhya pradesh where they were serving as probationer Extra-Assistant Commissioners. These respondents were directly recruited. Respondents 30 to 38 were probationer Deputy Collectors in the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat These respondents were directly recruited. Respondents 39 to 41 were officiating Deputy Collectors in the Madhya Bharat region. They are promotees. Respondents 42 to 43 were probationer Deputy Collectors in the Vindhya Pradesh region. They are direct recruits. Respondents 44 to 52 were officiating deputy Collectors in the Vindhya Pradesh region. They are promotees. Consequent upon the formation of the new State of Madhya Pradesh, the work of integration of services was taken up by the State Government in pursuance of directions of the Central Government under section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The posts of Extra-Assistant Commissioners in Mahakoshal were equated with the posts of Deputy Collectors in Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh regions. In the matter of determining relative seniority, the following principles were laid down: "in the matter of determining relative seniority- (a) Such seniority will be determined on the basis of the length of continuous service whether temporary or permanent in a particular cadre (excluding periods for which an appointment is held in a purely stop-gap or fortuitous arrangement): provided that where a service or cadre consists compartments/grades and where the normal method of recruitment to a higher compartment/grade is by promotion from a lower compartment/grade, continuous service will ordinarily be reckoned from the date of commencement of service in the lowest compartment/grade, on a salary not below such limit as may be specified in this behalf: provided further that the inter se seniority of Government servants drawn from the same unit will not ordinarily be disturbed; and (b) other factors being equal, seniority will be determined on the basis of age. " ( 2. " ( 2. ) BY notification dated 22nd November 1958, published in the Gazette of even date, the State Government published provisional combined gradation list of Extra-Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Collectors (Annexure II ). This list, however, contained only the names of confirmed Extra-Assittant commissioners and Deputy Collectors and probationer Extra-Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Collectors who were directly recruited. Objections were invited from Government servants adversely affected by the provisional decisions taken in formulating the list. By another notification dated 8th August 1959, published in the Gazette dated 10th August 1959 (Annexure III), (he state Government published another provisional combined gradation list of extra Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Collectors. This list related to the officiating Extra Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Collectors who were promotees. It appears that the Central Government took objection that there should not have been a separate list for officiating officers and that a combined list should have been prepared for all categories of officers, i. e. probationer and officiating, on the principles that the relative seniority will be determined according to the length of continuous officiation but without affecting inter se seniority of the parent unit. The State Government met the objection by saying that preparation of a unified list would entail lot of expenses and time and that the purpose would be served by adding suitable foot-note to the list of officiating officers. In view of this, the following foot-note was added to the provisional combined gradation list of officiating Extra-Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Collectors : "note - (1) The relative seniority of the above persons has been determined according to the length of continuous officiation in the cadre concerned, vide para 11 (a) of the notification. (2) Officiating person on confirmation will take his place in the gradation list of permanent employee (published under this departments Notification No. 4633-Mnteg. , dated the 22nd November 1958) with reference to the date of his continuous officiation without affecting inter se seniority in the State of origin. " After objections to the provisional combined gradation lists were decided by the Central Government, the State Government published the final gradation lists. The final gradation list in respect of confirmed and probationer Deputy collectors and Extra-Assistant Commissioners was published by notification dated 29th July 1961 in the Gazette dated 31st July 1961. " After objections to the provisional combined gradation lists were decided by the Central Government, the State Government published the final gradation lists. The final gradation list in respect of confirmed and probationer Deputy collectors and Extra-Assistant Commissioners was published by notification dated 29th July 1961 in the Gazette dated 31st July 1961. Some clerical corrections were made in the list and the corrected list was published by notification dated 1st August 1961 in the Gazette dated 3rd August 1964 (Annexure VIII ). As regards the officiating Extra-Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Collectors, the final gradation list was published by notification dated 12th January 1962 in the Gazette dated 16th January 1962. This final list, which was amended by notification dated 20th November 1963 (Annexures V and VII), contained the following foot-note : "note- (1) An officiating person on confirmation will take his place in the gradation list of permanent employees (published under this departments Notification No. 2893-347-I-Integ. dated the 29th July 1961 in the Gazette Extraordinary, dated the 31st July 1961 with reference to the date of his continuous officiation without affecting inter se seniority in the State of origin. (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 (1) above as if they are all permanent. " ( 3. ) BY order dated 9th August 1965, the State Government prepared a list determining the seniority of Deputy Collectors who were either probationers or officiating on 1st November 1956 and who were subsequently confirmed as deputy Collectors. This is Annexure IX and for brevity it will be referred to as the 1965 list. ( 4. ) ON 10th October 1968, eleven Deputy Collectors who were directly-recruited as Extra Assistant Commissioners before 1st November 1956 in the mahakoshal region and were working as probationers on that date filed Misc. Petition No. 467 of 1968 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the 1965 list. This petition was decided by the High Court on 29th August 1970 (Annexure XIV ). The High Court came to the conclusion that the 1965 list was not prepared "according to the principles of integration determined at the time when the different units were integrated into the State of Madhya Pradesh". This petition was decided by the High Court on 29th August 1970 (Annexure XIV ). The High Court came to the conclusion that the 1965 list was not prepared "according to the principles of integration determined at the time when the different units were integrated into the State of Madhya Pradesh". The principles of integration to which reference was made are those which we have quoted in paragraph (1) above in the matter of determining seniority. The High Court pointed out that both the parties agreed that a list of seniority ought to be prepared on the basis of those principles and that if there are mistakes in preparing the list, they ought to be corrected. The High court found that the 1965 list was not published for general information inviting objections and pointed out that it would be better if the list is published and every officer is invited to file objections that he likes to make with regard to his own placement and that after hearing all the objections a combined gradation list should be prepared. The High Court also held that the seniority of every officer has to be determined according to the date from which he has continuously officiated or worked in the service, no matter whether he was a direct recruit or a promotee. The High Court expressly rejected the contention of the petitioners in that case "that the seniority of the promotees should be counted from the date of the confirmation, but of the direct recruits from the date of their appointment as probationers". On these findings, the petition was allowed and the State Government was directed to prepare a fresh list after opportunity to all the officers concerned according to the settled principles of integration. ( 5. ) BY order dated 31st August 1971, the State Government prepared a list of officers as directed by the High Court in supersession of the 1965 list. This list is Annexure XVI and shall, for convenience, be called as the 1971 list. It was stated in the order that any Deputy Collector feeling aggrieved by this provisional gradation list is entitled to make representation to the State government within one month from the date of publication of the list in the gazette. Certain Deputy Collectors objected to the list These representations were sent for consideration to the Central Government. It was stated in the order that any Deputy Collector feeling aggrieved by this provisional gradation list is entitled to make representation to the State government within one month from the date of publication of the list in the gazette. Certain Deputy Collectors objected to the list These representations were sent for consideration to the Central Government. The Central government in consultation with the Central Advisory Committee decided on these representations that a fresh combined gradation list showing the rank of the officers as on 31st October 1956 on the basis of the accepted principles, viz. , length of continuous service in the equated grade subject to the maintenance of parent State seniority, should be prepared and after having prepared the fresh combined gradation list, the amendments to the list be made on the basis of developments after 1st November 1956 by keeping the following points in view, namely :- " (i) On confirmation a temporary/officiating officer shall be assigned a place in the list on the basis of the length of continuous service, subject to the condition that he will not go above an officer of his own region who was permanent on 31st October 1956. (ii) Officer on probation on 31st October 1956, shall on satisfactory completion of the probation, be assigned rank immediately below the officer to whom he would have been junior in the present State. (iii) Where an officer had been superseded for confirmation, he shall be shown on the basis of the length of continuous service, subject to the condition that he will be shown below the junior most officer of his own region who had superseded him. (iv) Officers who were in position as on 31st October 1956, shall be shown in the seniority list irrespective of whether or not they have since retired or expired or in any other manner ceased to hold office, with a suitable remark. (v) Reversions of officers, who were in position on 31st October 1956, if subsequently condoned by formal orders, shall not bs reflected in the seniority list showing the ranks and positions of officers in new State " The aforesaid decision of the Central Government was given under sub-section (5) of section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act. (v) Reversions of officers, who were in position on 31st October 1956, if subsequently condoned by formal orders, shall not bs reflected in the seniority list showing the ranks and positions of officers in new State " The aforesaid decision of the Central Government was given under sub-section (5) of section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act. The State Government by notification dated 30th July 1973, in accordance with the decision of the Central Government and in supersession of the 1971 list, published a provisional combined gradation list (Annexure XVII) which shall hereinafter be referred as the 1973 list. Persons aggrieved were invited to make representations within one month. ( 6. ) THE petitioners on 17th December 1973 filed Misc. Petition No. 963 dated 1973 under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the 1973 list. During the pendency of this petition, the State Government by notification dated 31st May 1974, published the final combined gradation list. This list is Annexure XIX This list, hereinafter referred to as the 1974 list, was prepared in accordance with the decisions of the Central Government under section 115 (5) of the States Re-organisation Act on the representations received against the 1973 list. On 1st August 1974, the petitioners withdrew Misc. Petition No. 963 of 1973 on the ground that after publication of the 1974 list, the petition had become infructuous. The petitioners were allowed to withdraw the petition by order dated 1st August 1974 passed by the High Court. The petitioners were also granted leave to file another petition for challenging the 1973 list. ( 7. ) THE petitioners then on 24th September 1974 filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the 1973 list (Annexure XVII) and the 1974 list (Annexure XIX ). ( 8. ) THE only contention urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the integration of services was complete after publication of the final gradation lists in 1963 and 1964 (Annexures VII and VIII), that thereafter the Central Government had no jurisdiction to intervene in the preparation of the gradation list under section 115 (5) of the Act and that the State government should have prepared a gradation list of all the Deputy Collectors in accordance with the order of the High Court dated 20th August 1970 in misc. Petition No. 467 of 1968, taking the lists Annexures VII and VIII as final and without reference to the Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on publication of the final lists Annexures VII and VIII, the powers of the Central Government under section 115 (5) came to an end and it became functus officio. No further reference, therefore, could be made to the Central Government on the representations of the officers or otherwise in the matter of preparation of the gradation list as ordered by the High court in Misc. Petition No. 467 of 1968. ( 9. ) THE relevant statutory provisions are contained in sections 115 (5) and 117 of the States Reorganisation Act which read as follows : "115 (5 ). The Central Government may by order establish one or more Advisory committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard to- (a) the division and integration of the services among the new States and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Madras; and (b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of this section and the proper consideration of any representations made by such person". "117. Power of Central Government to give directions-The Central Government may at any time before or after the appointed day give such directions to any State government as may appear to it to be necessary "for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this Part and the State Government shall comply with such directions". ( 10. ) THE above statutory provisions bearing upon the integration of services consequent upon the reorganisation of States, have come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a number of cases: [see Union of india v. P. K. Roy ( AIR 1968 SC 850 ), Union of India v. S. R. Dhareshwar ( AIR 1971 SC 1753 ), N. Subba Rao v. Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 69 ), Union of India v. G. R. Prabhavalkar ( AIR 1973 SC 2102 ), D. Rajiah v. Union of India ( AIR 1974 SC 457 ) and Union of India v. R. D. Nanjiah ( AIR 1977 SC 161 )]. Generally speaking, the work of integration requires formulation of principles on which the work has to be carried out, the preparation of preliminary gradation list in accordance with the principles so formulated, the publication of the list inviting representations from the persons affected, the consideration of representations and the preparation and publication of the final gradation list in the light of the decision on the representations. The duty to integrate the services of the units forming a new State is on the Central Government. It is for the Central Government to lay down the principles of integration. But the cental Government can leave the preliminary work of the preparation of gradation list on the State Government and can also constitute Advisory Committees for assisting itself. The final decision, however, in the matter of integration must be of the Central Government and the final gradation list must be in accordance with its decision. The process of integration can be taken to be complete only when a common gradation list containing the list of the concerned officers is published after the Central Government has disposed of the representations made by the officers. The object of integration and the preparation of a common gradation list is to inform the officers as to in what category they have been placed in the new State and as to what is their placement in the unified seniority list. The preparation of a common gradation list is the sine qua non for completing the integration. Until a common gradation list is finalised, it cannot be said that the process of integration is over. The scope of the power of the Central Government under section 115 of the act, as stated by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. G. R. Prabhavalkar (supra), is as follows: "the Central Government under section 115 of the Act, has to determine the principles governing equation of posts and prepare a common gradation list by integration of services. To assist it in the task of integration of services and for proper consideration of representations, the Central Government is empowered to establish Advisory Committees. The Central Government is bound to ensure a fair and equitable treatment to officers in the matter of integration of services and preparation of gradation lists. To assist it in the task of integration of services and for proper consideration of representations, the Central Government is empowered to establish Advisory Committees. The Central Government is bound to ensure a fair and equitable treatment to officers in the matter of integration of services and preparation of gradation lists. It has also to give a full and fair opportunity to the parties affected to make their representations; and the Central Government has also to give a proper consideration to those representations. " The passage quoted above was cited with approval by the Supreme Court again in Union of India v. R. D. Nanjiah (supra ). ( 11. ) FROM the facts stated earlier, it will be clear that after the principles relating to integration and seniority were settled, two provisional combined gradation lists were published (Annexures II and III ). Annexure II related to the confirmed Extra-Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Collectors and probationer Extra-Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Collectors who were directly recruited. Annexure III related to officiating Extra-Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Collectors who were promotees. The Central Government objected to two separate lists, but at that stage the Central Government was persuaded to agree that it will entail lot of expenses and time if the work of preparation of a common gradation list is taken again. Foot-notes were, therefore, added to the list of officiating promotees. After the disposal of objections, two final gradation lists (Annexures VIII and VII) were published. Annexure VIII related to confirmed Extra-Assistant Commissioners and Deputy collectors and probationer direct recruits. Annexure VII related to officiating promotees. The foot-note continued in Annexure VII. On the basis of the two final lists, the State Government prepared the 1965 list which was challenged in the High Court and as it was found to contain numerous errors and was not in accordance with the principles laid down in the matter of integration, it was quashed and the High Court directed the Government to prepare a fresh gradation list. It will thus be seen that at no stage a common gradation list showing the names of confirmed, probationer and officiating officers together was published. The so-called final gradation lists were not final in the sense that they did not show the inter se seniority of the confirmed and probationer officers and the officiating officers. It will thus be seen that at no stage a common gradation list showing the names of confirmed, probationer and officiating officers together was published. The so-called final gradation lists were not final in the sense that they did not show the inter se seniority of the confirmed and probationer officers and the officiating officers. The two lists, therefore, did not serve the purpose of integration and it cannot be said that the integration became complete on the preparation of these lists. For the same reason it cannot be held that on the publication of these lists the power of the Central Government under section 115 (5) or section 117 came to an end and it became functus officio. ( 12. ) IN P. K. Roys case a final gradation list was quashed in so far as a class of employees was concerned who, in the opinion of the Court, had not been given opportunity to represent in respect of certain matters to the Central government. The apparently final list was really not final to that extent and a direction was issued to finalise the list after giving opportunity to the employees concerned. P. K. Roys case thus shows that a final list may not be really final [see further the explanation of P. K. Roys case in Nanjiahs case. ] further, the Central Government has power to review its decisions under section 115 (5): [see D. Rajiahs case. ] The steps taken by the Central Government for preparation of a common gradation list of all Extra-Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Collectors was tot beyond its authority. As earlier explained, the two final gradation lists, in the absence of a common gradation list, were really not final. The Central Government had, therefore, jurisdiction to take steps for finalisation of a common gradation list and to issue necessary directions in that matter. The Central Governments earlier approval to have two final gradation lists with foot-notes can be taken to have been reviewed by it. The two lists were creating confusion and were not serving the purpose of integration. The Central Government, therefore, rightly directed the preparation of a common gradation list. ( 13. ) THE direction of the High Court in Misc. Petition No. 467 of 1968 was to prepare a fresh list after giving opportunity to all the officers concerned according to the principles of integration. The Central Government, therefore, rightly directed the preparation of a common gradation list. ( 13. ) THE direction of the High Court in Misc. Petition No. 467 of 1968 was to prepare a fresh list after giving opportunity to all the officers concerned according to the principles of integration. This direction cannot be construed to mean that a common gradation list should have been prepared by the State government alone without reference to the Central Government as required by section 115 (5 ). As earlier pointed out by us, the work of integration was not complete by the publication of the so-called final lists because of the absence of a common gradation list showing the inter se seniority of all categories of officers, viz. confirmed, probationers and officiating. As integration was not complete, the Central Government was within its authority to issue directions for preparation of a fresh common gradation list. It is not argued that the principles laid down by the Central Government for preparation of the fresh list were different from those which were earlier laid down for purposes of integration. The direction for preparation of a fresh list accepted the same principles. They also took into account the developments after 1st November 1956 in the matter of confirmation of probationer and officiating officers. It cannot, therefore, said that the 1973 list and the 1974 list published in pursuance of the directions of the Central Government were in any way invalid. The Central Governments directions to prepare a fresh common gradation list were well within its power under section 117 read with section 115 (5) of the act. They also did not contravene any direction of the High Court. The High court did not direct that the work of preparation of the list should be done apart from the provisions of section 115 (5 ). Indeed, the gradation list which the High Court directed to prepare must be understood to be a list within the frame-work of section 115 (5 ). In this view of the matter, the provisional and final common gradation lists, i. e. the 1973 list and the 1974 list (Annexures XVII and XIX) cannot be declared invalid. ( 14. ) THE petition fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. The amount of security deposit be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.