( 1 ) THIS appeal was presented against the order dt. 22-9-75 of Venkataramaiah, j, dismissing WP. 4482/75. The appellant is a member of the State civil Services in the rank of Senior Health Inspector. His services were transferred to the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bangalore the service wherein was considered as a foreign service under the Karnataka civil Services Rules. While he was working as Senior Health Inspector under the Corporation the Corporation passed a resolution on 30-12-1974 to the effect that the services of certain persons who were working in its health Dept, including the appellant, be absorbed as employees of the corporation after obtainingthe previous sanction of the State Govt. The state Govt accorded its sanction to the said resolution by its order dt. 6-5-75. On 19-7-75 the Administrator of the Corporation, who had assumed the duties by then, wrote to the State Govt stating that the question of absorption of the sixteen Senior Health Inspectors, including the appellant, might be deferred in view of the fact that uniform Municipal Service Rules were about to be brought into force. On the basis of the said letter the Govt issued an order dt. 25-8-75 withdrawing the sanction accorded earlier in its order dt. 6-5-1975. ( 2 ) THE contention of the appellant is that he had become a permanent employee of the Corporation as soon as the Govt accorded its sanction on 6-5-75 and that the Govt had no competence to withdraw it by the later order dt. 25-8-75. The learned Single Judge rejected both the contentions and dismissed the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE main question to be decided in this appeal is whether the govt could withdraw the sanction which had been accorded by it earlier by its order dt. 6-5-1975. ( 4 ) THE contention of the appellant is that he had been absorbed in the service of the Corporation and that the power to. abosorb him vests in the Corporation apart from S. 94 of the City of Bangalore Municipal corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Sec. 89 of the Act reads as follows : 89. Appointment to Corporation establishment.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Ss. abosorb him vests in the Corporation apart from S. 94 of the City of Bangalore Municipal corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Sec. 89 of the Act reads as follows : 89. Appointment to Corporation establishment.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Ss. 84 85, 86 and 88 appointments to the Corporation establishment shall be made- (a) by the Corporation if the maximum monthly salary of the office exceeds two hundred and fifty rupees; (b) by the Commissioner in all other cases. (2) Omitted. Since the maximum monthly salary of the appellant exceeds Rs. 250, tha corporation is the authority which can appoint the appellant and other senior Health Inspectors. Sections 90 and 91 read as follows : 90. Establishment schedule.-The Commissioner shall from time to time, lay before the Standing Committee a schedule setting forth the designations and grades of the officers and servants who should in his opinion constitute the Corporation establishment, and "embodying his proposals with regard to the salaries, fees and allowances payable to them. (2) The Standing Committee may either approve or amend such schedule as it thinks fit and shall lay it before the Corporation with its remarks, if any. (3) The Corporation shall sanction such schedule with or without modifications as it thinks fit and may from time to time amend it at the instance of the Commissioner and Standing Committee: provided that no new office shall be created without the sanction of the Govt if the maximum monthly salary exceeds (One hundred and fifty rupees ). 91. Restriction of employment of establishment.-No officer or servant shall be entertained on the Corporation establishment un- less he has been appointed under S. 84, S. 85, S. 86 or S. 88 or unless his office and emoluments are included in the schedule sanctioned under Section 90. It is therefore clear that no appointment can me made by the Corporation unless there is compliance with the requirements of S. 91, Ss. 84, 85, 86 and 88 have no relevance for the purpose of this case. Hence, the office and its emoluments must be included in the schedule sanctioned under S. 90 before an appointment can be made by the Corporaton. 84, 85, 86 and 88 have no relevance for the purpose of this case. Hence, the office and its emoluments must be included in the schedule sanctioned under S. 90 before an appointment can be made by the Corporaton. The relevant part of Sec. 94 reads as follows : subject to the provisions of this Act, the Standing Committee may frame regulations in respect of the Corporation establishment- (g) generally prescribing conditions of service: provided that every regulation so framed shall be subject to, confirmation by the Corporation and that every regulation framed under c1 (b) in respect of any officer whose appointment is subject to confirmation by the Govt or C1 (d) or C1 (e) or C1 (g) shall also require the sanction of the Government. ( 5 ) UNDER Ss. 84, 85, 88 and 94, the Corporation, with the sanction of the Govt under S. 94 (g) of the Act. framed the City of Bangalore Municipal corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to, as C and R Rules ). Rule 1 Cl (iii) of these regulations provides that these Regulations do not apply to, Govt servants deputed to the Corporation. Rule 3 provides that the method of recruitment and minimum qualifications for recruitment to posts enumerated in the schedule to these Regulations shall be as indicated in columns 2 and 3 of the Schedule. Under Rule 5 Cl (iv) it is provided that the candidate shall not be eligible for appointment if he is already in the service of the state Govt or Central Govt or a local body in India and has applied without the written consent of the authority competent to release him if he is appointed. The relevant entry in the Schedule reads as follows : category of Method of Minimum Authority compeposts recruitment qualifications tent to appoint Senior Health 50% by promotion (1) A pass in SSLC. By the Corporainspector from the cadre of (2) a Pass in Health tion under S. 89 of junior Health Inspector's training the Corporation insipectors of the from a recognised Act. Corporation. Institutiion. 50% by deputation from the State Directorate of Health Services. By the Corporainspector from the cadre of (2) a Pass in Health tion under S. 89 of junior Health Inspector's training the Corporation insipectors of the from a recognised Act. Corporation. Institutiion. 50% by deputation from the State Directorate of Health Services. The above provisions make it clear that 50% of the posts of Senior Health inspectors in the Corporation have to be filled by promotion from the cadre of Junior Health Inspectors of the corporation and the other 50% of the posts haye to be filled by persons on deputation from the State Directorate of Health Services. In Mohan Lal v. Union of India AIR. 1907 SC. 1889. it has been held that on appointment a Govt servant acquires the status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by ' consent of both parties but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Govt. The relationship between the appellant and the Govt is therefore governed by statutory rules. He therefore does not ceace to be a Govt servant unless the conditions prescribed by statutory provisions for such cessation as Govt servant are fulfilled. Similarly, the relationship between the Applt, in his capacity as a Govt servant on deputation, and the Corpn is governed by the Regulations framed by the Corpn under the Act. As provided in the Schedule referred to above, 50 per cent of the posts of Senior health Inspectors in the Corporation can be held duly by persons who are govt servants and who are deputed to serve under the Corporation by the directorate of Health Services of the State Govt. In order that the appellant may be absorbed into the services of the Corporation as a permanent employee, he must first cease to be a Govt servant. It is also necessary that the Schedule (framed under Rule 3 of the above said Service regulations of the Corporation) should be amended so as to permit 50 per cent of the posts required to be filled by persons on deputation from the Govt, may be filled by persons other than Govt servants on deputation. In other words if the said 50% of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment even of persons like the appellant who were formerly Govt servants, the provisions as provided in the above Schedule with regard to the method of recruitment to. In other words if the said 50% of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment even of persons like the appellant who were formerly Govt servants, the provisions as provided in the above Schedule with regard to the method of recruitment to. fill up these 50 per cent posts has to be amended. When the method of recruitment is prescribed under the Regulations it is not open to the Corporation to by-pass the Regulations and to appoint persons to fill those posts by a method not provided in the Regulations. It is therefore not open to the Corporation to fill 50 per cent of the posts required to be filled by persons on deputation from the Govt Health Directorate by appointing persons other than such Govt servants on deputation without amending the Schedule which is part of the Service Regulations. Absorption into the services of the Corporation of persons like the appellant only means the appointment of such persons to the posts under the Corporation. Such appointment or absorption can only be made in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations. The Corporation, therefore, has no authority to appoint any person as a permanent employee to any of the 50% of the posts of Health Inspectors reserved for persons on deputation without the necessary amendment of the Schedule to the Regulations. ( 6 ) IT is therefore necessary to consider whether the Regulations have been amended in such a way as to enable the Corporation to appoint the appellant to one of the 50 per cent of the posts which are to be filled up by persons on deputation from the Govt, In Abdul Rahim v. State of mysore (1967) 1 Myslj. 309, it has been held that in order to determine whether a resolution of the Corporation amounts to a Regulation prescribing conditions of service, the substance of the resolution must be looked into and that in the absence of any prescription by the Corporation as to the manner of publishing Regulations made by it the non-publcation of a resolution under s. 94 (g) of the City of Bangalore Corporation Act in any particular manner cannot affect its validity. We have therefore to see whether the resolution of the Corporation in the present case has the effect of amending the regulations as contended by the appellant. We have therefore to see whether the resolution of the Corporation in the present case has the effect of amending the regulations as contended by the appellant. ( 7 ) UNDER S. 94 of the Act, it is the Standing Committee which can frame the Regulations prescribing conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation. It is also; provided that every such Regulation shall be subject to confirmation of the Corporation and the Regulations under cl (g) of that section prescribing conditions of service shall also require the sanction of the Govt. We have therefore to see what the Standing committee did in the present case. The question of absorption of the Senior health Inspectors whose services had been lent from the Dept of Public health Services of the Government was considered at the meeting of the standing Committee (Health) held on 9-11-72. The proceedings of that committee show that in its opinion it was desirable that the Senior Health inspectors whose services had been lent from the Govt and who were on deputation in the Corporation should be absorbed in the Corporation service if they were willing to be so absorbed on their own pay and subject to the condition that they should accept their seniority below the Senior health Inspectors who were already permanent employees of the Corporation. The last part of the proceedings read as follows :. . . . . The provision made in the C and R Rules that 50 per cent by promotion among Junior Health Inspectors of the Corporation 50 per cent by deputation may be amended as detailed below- by promotion from the cadre of Junior Health Inspectors of the corporation. Therefore, it is resolved that the Senior Health Inspectors lent from the Dept of Public Health Services, Govt of Mysore willing be absorbed in the Corporation services to avoid frequent transfers of the health Inspectors for better supervision of sanitation, trades etc of the Corporation subject to the condition that they should accept their seniority below the rank Ojf the permanent Corporation employees (Senior Health Inspectors ). Further resolved that the vacancies of senior Health Inspectors in the Corporation be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Junior Health Inspectors by amending the C and R rules appropriately. " thereafter, the Health Officer of the Corporation made a report to the commissioner on 9-10-74. Further resolved that the vacancies of senior Health Inspectors in the Corporation be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Junior Health Inspectors by amending the C and R rules appropriately. " thereafter, the Health Officer of the Corporation made a report to the commissioner on 9-10-74. In that report the aforesaid resolution of the standing Committee (Health) was referred to. He also agreed with the decision taken by the Standing Committee (Health ). While submitting a copy of the resolution of the Standing Committee (Health) he requested that the matter may be examined with regard to C and R Rules of the corporation and early action taken. The names of the 16 Senior Health Inspectors deputed from the Directorate of Health Services and working at that time in the Corporation were also mentioned. The Commissioner's note of 19-10-74 has been embodied in the proceedings of the Corporation at its meeting held on 30-12-74. The proceedings of that meeting read as follows: proceedings of the meeting of the Corporation held on 30-12-74. Urged Sub. No. 15 (1052): Commissoner's Note No. B12 (4) PR. 526/ 74-75 dt. 10-10-74 placing the report of the Health Officer suggesting that the following Senior Health Inspectors working on deputation at present may be absorbed in the interest of work if they are willing on their pay and accept their seniority as was done previously for the reasons stated therein for decision. (The names of the 16 Health Inspectors including that of the appellant were set out ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sri M. V. Tiwari moved the following resolution: resolved that the Commissioner's Note No. B12 (4) PR|526|74-75 dt. 19-10-74 be ' approved with the modification that Sri B. T. Somasekhara reddy, Sr. Health Inspector be also absorbed in place of sri Ramaswamy who has been transferred. Sri P. N. S. Murthy seconded the above resolution. Mayor put the resolution to vote and it was passed unanimously. RESOLUTION resolved that the Commissioner's Note B12/4 PR/526/74-75 dt. 19-10-74 be approved with the modification that Sri B. T. Somasekhara reddy, Senior Health Inspector be also abosrbed in place of Sri ramaswamy who has been transferred. Sd. T. D. Naganna, mayor. On 6-5-75 the Govt accorded its sanction to the resolution of the corporation dt. RESOLUTION resolved that the Commissioner's Note B12/4 PR/526/74-75 dt. 19-10-74 be approved with the modification that Sri B. T. Somasekhara reddy, Senior Health Inspector be also abosrbed in place of Sri ramaswamy who has been transferred. Sd. T. D. Naganna, mayor. On 6-5-75 the Govt accorded its sanction to the resolution of the corporation dt. 30-12 -74 by its order which reads as follows : proceectings of the Government of Karnataka sub: Absorption of Senior Health Inspectors in the Corporation of the City of Bangalore-Sanctions order No. HMA 13 MNU 75 dt. Bangalore 6th May 1975 order: With reference to the correspondence ending with letter no. B12 (4) PR. 765/74-75 dt. 18-2-75 from the Commissioner, corporation of the City of Bangalore, on the subject mentioned above, sanction is accorded to the Corporation Resolution dt. 30-12-74 regarding the absorption of the Senior Health Inspectors mentioned below under S. 89 of the Corporation Act. (The names of the 16 Senior Health Inspectors including that of the appellant were mentioned ). By Order and in the name of the Govt of Karnataka, sd/. . . . . Under Secty to Govt, Health and Municipal Admn Dept. Thereafter, the Corporation was superseded and an Administrator came to be appointed. On 17-5-75, the Commissioner of the Corporation wrote to the Secretary to Govt, Health Dept, stating that there were 17 Senior health Inspectors who were all Corporation employees and that the remaining 16 Senior Health Inspectors were persons deputed from the directorate of Health and Family Planning Services that in case the 16 sr Health Inspectors working on deputation basis were absorbed in the corporation Services disputes between Corporation employees and Senior health Inspectors so absorbed would arise regarding their relative seniority etc, and that it would result in the work of the Corporation suffering. He also stated that the C and R Rules would also have to be amended before the Corporation resolution was given effect to and that already there was a lot of protest from others against such absorption. He therefore requested the govt to reconsider the matter in view of the opinion of the Commissioner in his earlier letter of 21-1-75 and to communicate the orders of the Govt to defer the proposal to absorb the Senior Health Inspectors for the present. He therefore requested the govt to reconsider the matter in view of the opinion of the Commissioner in his earlier letter of 21-1-75 and to communicate the orders of the Govt to defer the proposal to absorb the Senior Health Inspectors for the present. The Administrator of the Corporation also appears to have written a letter on 19-7-75 proposing that the question of absorption of 16 Senior Health Inspectors might be deferred in view of the fact that uniform Municipal service regulations would be coming into force shortly. The Govt, thereafter, passed the order on 25-8-75 withdrawing its earlier order dt. 6-5-75. The order of the Govt dt. 25-8-75 reads as follows proceedings of the Government of Karnataka sub: Absorption of Senior Health Inspectors to the Corporation of the City of Bangalore-issue orders of withdrawal. Order No. HMA 13 MNU 75 dt. Bangalore 25-8-75. Head: 1. GO. No. HMA 13 MNU. 75 dt. 6-5-75. 2. L. No. B12 (4) PR!526/ 74-75 dt. 18-7-75 from the Administrator, Bangalore City corporation, Bangalore. Preamble ; Govt in their order dt. 6-5-75 read above have accorded senction to the Corporation resolution dt. 30-12-74 for the absorption of 15 Senior Health Inspectors sanctioned therein under S. 89 of the city of Bangalore Corporation Act, 1949. The Administrator, Bangalore City Corporation, in his letter dated 19-7-1975 real above has proposed that the question of absorption of the 16 Senior Health Inspectors may be deferred in view of the fact that the uniform municipal service would be coming into force shortly. ORDER after careful consideration of the case in all its aspects. Govt are pleaped to withdraw the orders issued in GO. No. HMA 13 MUN 75 dated 6-5-1s75. By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, sd/. . . . . . . . . Under Secty to Govt Health and Mun Admn Dept. ( 8 ) THE above facts are not disputed. Mr. Muralidhar Rao, appearing for the appellant, stated that the appellant had given a letter of consent to the hands of the Mayor on 30-12-74 agreeing to accept his seniority below the Senior Health Inspectors who were permanent employees under the corporation. Mr. A. J. Shetty, appearing for the Corporation, disputed that any such letter had been handed over by the appellant. Mr. A. J. Shetty, appearing for the Corporation, disputed that any such letter had been handed over by the appellant. He also contended thai, even if such a letter had been given by the appellant, it did not in any way affect the legal position of the Corporation. On the above disputed question of fact it is not necessary to express any opinion. ( 9 ) IT is to be noticed that in the resolution of the Corporation dated 30-12-74 there is no reference to the amendment of the C and R Rules. The resolution gives approval to the Commissioner's note with the modification that another Senior Health Inspector not mentioned in the Commissioner's note may also be absorbed. The Commissioner's note of 19-10-74 also does not refer to any amendment of the C and R Rules. The order of the govt dt. 6-5-75, according sanction to the resolution of the Corporation, does not also refer to any amendment of the C and R Rules. Hence, it cannot be said that the resolution of the Corporation was intended to amend the c and R Rules. The same observation applies to the sanction accorded by the govt. There is also another reason why it must be held that there was no amendment of the C and R Rules which enabled the Corporation to absorb the Senior Health Inspectors who were on deputation as permanent employees of the Corporation. Under S. 94 of the Act, it is the Standing committee which has the power to amend the regulations relating to conditions of service of the Corporation employees. The resolution of the standing Committee (Health) of 9-11-72 consists of two parts. The first part refers to the absorption of the Senior Health Inspectors on deputation as permanent employees of the Corporation. The second part refers to the amendment of the C and R Rules. But the amendment of the C and R rules suggested by this resolution is to enable the Corporation to fill up the vacancies of the Senior Health Inspectors by promotion from the cadre of Junior Health Inspectors. This amendment of the C and R Rules does not enable the Corporation to absorb the Senior Health Inspectors on deputation into the service of the Corporation as its permanent employees. Even if it is to be assumed that the resolution of the Corporation dt. This amendment of the C and R Rules does not enable the Corporation to absorb the Senior Health Inspectors on deputation into the service of the Corporation as its permanent employees. Even if it is to be assumed that the resolution of the Corporation dt. 30-12-74 gave approval to the amendment of the C and R Rules suggested by the standing Committee (Health) and that the sanction of the Govt was accorded to that resolution, it only comes to this, namely, that it must be deemed that the amendment suggested by the Standing Committee (Health) came into effect on sanction being accorded by the Govt on 6-5-75. But this amendment of the C and R Rules, as already observed, does not enable the corporation to absorb the Senior Health Inspectors on deputation as permanent employees of the Corporation. Thus, in any case, there was no amendment of the regulations which would enable the Corporation to absorb the Senior Health Inspectors on deputation into the service as permanent employees. ( 10 ) MR. RAIKAR, appearing for the Intervener, was permitted to address arguments on the questions of law involved in this appeal. He has produced copies of the orders of the Govt on two previous occasions when some Junior Health Inspectors who were working on deputation in the corporation were absorbed by the Corporation into its service. The order of the Govt dt. 21-11-60, after setting out the names of the Junior Health inspectors, stated that the Mysore Civil Services Regulations ceased to apply to them, that the rules framed by the Corporation would apply to them and, after stating that their previous services would be counted for pension leave and gratuity, it directed that the lien of such officials in the dept of Public Health should be removed from the date of their absorption in the service of the Corporation. The order of the Govt dt. 12-5-61 also mentioned the names of some other Junior Health Inspectors and stated that they have been allotted to the Corporation to be absorbed in the corporation cadre and their lien in the Public Health Dept was deemed to be removed from the date of their relief from the Public Health Dept. ( 11 ) IN the present case, there is no order of the Govt removing the lien of the appellant and other Senior Health Inspectors after the order of the Government dt. ( 11 ) IN the present case, there is no order of the Govt removing the lien of the appellant and other Senior Health Inspectors after the order of the Government dt. 6-5-75. ( 12 ) THE lien of the appellant continues to be in the Public Health dept of the State Govt. The order of the Govt dt. 6-5-75 does not have the effect of terminating the services of the appellant and other Senior Health inspectors like him and they do not cease to be Govt servants and until and unless they ceased to be Govt servants it was not possible for the corporation to appoint them as its permanent employees or, in other words, to absorb them into its service. These Senior. Health Inspectors on deputation, therefore, continued to be Govt servants serving under the Corporation as persons on deputation even after 6-5-75. The decisions in Parameswaran v. Chief Secty to Govt of Mysore (1971) 1 Myslj. 378 . , S. B. Suranna v. State of mysore (1966) 2 Myslj. 372. , Shivappa v. State of Mysore (1970) 1 Myslj. 235 . and the unreported decision of this Court in WP. 1271/66 WP. 1271/66. are cases of transfer of Govt servants from one Dept of the Govt to another. They have no application to the present case. ( 13 ) RELIANCE was placed on behalf of the appellant on the decision in shama Rao v. State of Mysore AIR. 1963 Mys. 208=1963 Myslj Supp. 412. . In that case, the Govt made an order under the provisions of an Official Memorandum of the 14th August 1958 extending the services of an Asst Engineer by 11 months and 20 days. In consequence of the said order he continued in service even after the date on which he would have retired. Within about a fortnight after the extended period of service commenced, the Govt issued a second notification recalling with immediate effect the previous notification extending his service. The official Memoandum of 14th August 1958 contained exhaustive provisions on the question of extension of service but did not reserve to the govt the power to recall the extension granted under it. Within about a fortnight after the extended period of service commenced, the Govt issued a second notification recalling with immediate effect the previous notification extending his service. The official Memoandum of 14th August 1958 contained exhaustive provisions on the question of extension of service but did not reserve to the govt the power to recall the extension granted under it. It was held that, after his service was extended by the order of the Govt, the petitioner in that case acquired the right to continue in service during the extended period unless he was removed from his post under the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 and after affording him opportunities guaranteed under Art. 311 of the Constitution. But in the present case, the appellant acquired no right under the order of the govt dt. 6th May 1975 as he did not cease to be a Govt servant. Hence, that decision has no application to the facts of the present case. ( 14 ) THE learned Govt Advocate contended that it was open to the govt to withdraw the order dt. 6-5-75 since it had not been communicated to the appellant and relied on the following observations in Bachhittar singh v. State of Punjab AIR. 1963 SC. 395. Thus it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the persons who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it. it would be open to the council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again, and therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character. In the present case also there was no communication of the order of the govt dt. 6-5-75 to the appellant. Hence, it was open to the Govt to withdraw its earlier order dt. 6-5-75 by its subsequent order dt. 25-8-75. ( 15 ) ON behalf of the appellant, reliance was placed on the decision in Lt. Governor H. P. v. Avivash Sharma AIR. 1970 SC, 1576. . In that case, possession had been taken pursuant to a notification under S. 17 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the land became vested in the Govt. 25-8-75. ( 15 ) ON behalf of the appellant, reliance was placed on the decision in Lt. Governor H. P. v. Avivash Sharma AIR. 1970 SC, 1576. . In that case, possession had been taken pursuant to a notification under S. 17 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the land became vested in the Govt. It was held that the notification cannot be withdrawn in exercise of the powers under S. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act or under S. 21 of the General Clauses Act as there is no provision by which the land statutorily vested in the Govt reverts to the original owner by mere cancellation of the Notification. The observations in State of M. P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma AIR. 1966 SC. 1593 that the Notification can be cancelled at any time by/the Govt under S. 21 of the General clauses Act before possession was taken by the Govt were held not applicable to a case in which possession had been taken by the Govt. In the present case, it is not shown how the order of the Govt dt. 6-5-75 conferred any vested right on the appellant. Moreover, in pursuance of that order of the Govt the Commr of the Corporation had yet to issue an order absorbing mm in the service of the Corporation. Hence, that decision does not help the appellant. ( 16 ) THE appellant also relied on the decision in State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly AIR. 1958 SC. 1018,. In that case it was held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not expressly confer any power on the appropriate Govt to cancel or supersede a reference made under S. 10 (l) of that Act and that no such power can be claimed by implication on the strength of S. 21 of the General clauses Act. While considering the scope of S. 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, it was observed as follows: it is well settled that this section embodies a rule of construction and the question whether or not it applies to the provisions of a particular statute would depend on the subject matter, context and the effect of the relevant provisions of the said statute. In other words it would be necessary to examine carefully the scheme of the Act, its qbject and all its relevant and material previsions before deciding whether by the application of the rule of construction enunciated by s. 21, the appellant's contention is justified that the power to cancel the reference made under Sec. 10 (1) can be said to vest in the appropriate govt by necessary implication. If we come to; the conclusion that the context and effect of the relevant provisions is repugnant to the application of the said rule of construction, the appellant would not be entitled to invoke the assistance of the said section. We must, therefore, proceed to examine the relevant provisions of the Act itself. " after referring to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was observed that after the dispute is referred to the tribunal it is the tribunal which is seized of the dispute and which can exercise jurisdiction in respect of it and that except for cases falling under S. 10 (5) of the Industrial disputes Act the appropriate Govt stands outside the reference proceedings which are under the control and jurisdiction of the tribunal itself, that it is obligatory on the appropriate Govt after the award is made to publish the said award within the specified time and that the award so published shall be final and shall not be called in question by any Court in any manner whatsoever, that the award remains in operation for a perioo? of one year from the date on which it becomes enforceable, that the scheme of the provisions indicate that the reference proceedings were left exclusively within the jurisdiction of the tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes act and to make the awards of such tribunals binding between the parties subject to special powers conferred on the appropriate govt under Ss. l7a and 19. The scheme of the Act was held to be inconsistent with the power in the appropriate Govt to cancel the reference made under S. 10 (l ). It was under these circumstances that it was held that the rule of construction enunciated by S. 21 of the General Clauses Act does not enable the Govt to rescind or cancel the original order of reference under S. 10 (l) of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 17 ) IN the present case the order of the Govt dt. It was under these circumstances that it was held that the rule of construction enunciated by S. 21 of the General Clauses Act does not enable the Govt to rescind or cancel the original order of reference under S. 10 (l) of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 17 ) IN the present case the order of the Govt dt. 6-5-75 can be said to have merely given its approval to the proposal of the Corporation to absorb the Senior Health Inspectors serving under the Corporation on deputation into its own service as permanent employees. But this approval was subject to the further action on the part of the Govt to be taken to terminate the services of such Senior Health Inspectors from its own service. It was also subject to the condition that the Corporation would take steps to get the Service Regulations amended sq as to enable it to appoint the Senior Health Inspectors on deputation as it own permanent employees, that is by amending the Schedule prescribing the qualification of persons to fill the 50 per cent posts of Senior Health Inspectors which, as the provisions stands, are to be filled only by persons on deputation like the present appellant. ( 18 ) IN the present case, the order of the Govt dt. 6-5-75 gave sanction for absorption in the service of the Corporation as its permanent employees in principle of persons who are Govt employees who have been deputed by the Govt to serve under the Corporation. There is no reason why the Govt should not withdraw its order dt. 6-5-75 before such employees could be or were actually absorbed by the Corporation. There is, in our opinion, nothing in the context or the effect of the relevant provisions of the Corporation Act which would render inapplicable the rule of construction embodied in S. 21 of the General Clauses Act. The Govt, there, fore, was in our opinion, entitled to withdraw its earlier order dt. 6-5-75. ( 19 ) WE see no reasons to interfere with the decision of the learned single Judge. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .