Sumanlal Prabhulal Shukla v. State of Gujarat — 1976 DIGILAW 82 (GUJ)

JUDGMENT : T.U. Mehta, J. If ever there was a complete justification for issuing a writ of mandamus, the said justification is furnished by the facts of this case which supplies an outstanding illustration showing how a legitimate grievance of a Government servant can be successfully kept at bay, and lost in the nightmare of Secretariat intricacies, entanglement of red-tape methods, and obduracy of bureaucratic steel-frame. 2. The appellant-petitioner is agitating his grievance as regards his equation, absorption and seniority ever since last about 20 years, but has failed to get any redress at the hands of the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat, even though, in the meanwhile, he has obtained some very specific orders in his favour from this court. Neither through these favourable court orders, nor through some contempt petitions the appellant-petitioner has been successful in getting his grievance redressed till now. In the meanwhile on August 4, 1975 he has retired on superannuation. His claim of seniority and promotion has thus now lost its fevour and what was purely a question or service issue has now become one of money payment. 3. It is in the background of the following facts that this matter arises for our consideration. 4. The appellant, who is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, was confirmed in the erstwhile State of Saurashtra as Planning Officer which was a class I post. He was confirmed in that post some time before the integration of the State of Saurashtra with the erstwhile State of Bombay under the States Reorganisation Act. This integration took place on 1st November, 1956. The facts of the case show that the Directorate of Statistics and Planning in which the petitioner was serving as a Planning Officer in the State of Saurashtra, was directly under the Cabinet and Co-ordination Department which was headed by the Chief Secretary of the Saurashtra State However, there was no separate post of Planning Officer in the State of Bombay and, therefore, for the purpose of equating and absorbing the petitioner's post in the newly formed State, there was no immediate corresponding post available. It is an admitted position that soon after the integration of the States of Bombay and Saurashtra, the petitioner was absorbed in the Education Department of the new State in class II post. Thereafter the State of Bombay was bifurcated and the State of Gujarat was formed with effect from 1-5-1960. It is an admitted position that soon after the integration of the States of Bombay and Saurashtra, the petitioner was absorbed in the Education Department of the new State in class II post. Thereafter the State of Bombay was bifurcated and the State of Gujarat was formed with effect from 1-5-1960. The petitioner was continued in class II post even in the Government of Gujarat. The petitioner felt aggrieved at this and, therefore, filed Civil Suit No. 1723/64 against the Government of Gujarat, challenging his absorption in class II post of the Education Department. The petitioner failed in this suit with the result that he approached this court in first Appeal No. 380/67. During the pendency of that appeal, the Government of India in consultation with the Central Advisory Committee, issued the direction to the State of Gujarat to treat the post of the Planning Officers of the ex-Saurashtra State as an intermediate category between class I and If posts in the Education Department of the former State of Bombay. The Central Government also directed the State Government to give seniority to the petitioner above all the persons in class II post of Bombay Education Service. Pursuant to this direction of the Government of India, the Government of Gujarat passed a Resolution to treat the post of a Planning Officer of the erstwhile State of Saurashtra as an intermediate category between class I and II posts of the former State of Bombay. This Resolution is dated 11th May, 1972 and is found at Annexure 'A'. The relevant portion of this resolution is important. The same is as under : - "The Government of India, Department of Personnel under their letter No. 21/15/69-SR(S), dated 11th June, 1971 read with letter No. 20/7/72-SR(S) dated 29th March, 1972 have directed that the post of Planning Officer of the ex-Saurashtra State should be treated as an intermediate category between class I and II posts of the former Bombay State. Accordingly, Government is pleased to direct that the post of Planning Officer of the ex-Saurashtra State should be placed in an isolated category between class I and II and the seniority of the incumbents of the post should be fixed above all persons absorbed in class II posts as on 1-11-1956 in respective department. These orders shall come into force retrospectively from 1-11-1956." 5. These orders shall come into force retrospectively from 1-11-1956." 5. When this resolution was passed, F.A. No. 380/67 which was preferred against the decree passed in the Civil Suit No. 1723/64, was pending. When that appeal came up for hearing, the attention of this court was drawn to the above referred resolution of the Government and, therefore, on August 5, 1972, this court disposed of that appeal by passing the following order : "The respondent No. 1 State of Gujarat is directed to implement the resolution Ex. C to the Civil Application dated 11th May, 1972 absorbing the plaintiff in the intermediate category between class I and class II posts and fixing his seniority above all persons absorbed in class II posts as on 1st November, 1956 with retrospective effect from the 1st November, 1956 at an early date. The State of Gujarat is also directed to grant all the consequential reliefs pertaining to promotion, salary and other emoluments permissible under law. In view of the facts of this appeal, there will be no order as to costs throughout. (underlined by us) At annexure B in the record of the Special Civil Application is the copy of the judgment delivered by this court in that F.A. No. 380/67. 6. Thus even though the respondents were directed by the above decree to grant all consequential reliefs pertaining to the promotion, salary and other emoluments to the petitioner, pursuant to the resolution of the Government of Gujarat dated 11-5-1972, the Government of Gujarat published a provisional seniority list of class I officers of the Administrative Branch of the Education Department by its resolution dated 28th January, 1973. In this provisional seniority list the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 13 even though in view of the above referred Resolution dated 11th May, 1972 it ought to be at Sr. No. 7 At Annexure C in the Special Civil Application is found a copy of this provisional seniority list. The petitioner being aggrieved by this made a representation on 12-2-1973 to the Government of Gujarat pointing out that he ought to have been placed at Sr. No. 7 instead of Sr. No. 13 and must be treated senior to all others. However, the Government of Gujarat did not pay any heed to this. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by this made a representation on 12-2-1973 to the Government of Gujarat pointing out that he ought to have been placed at Sr. No. 7 instead of Sr. No. 13 and must be treated senior to all others. However, the Government of Gujarat did not pay any heed to this. 7. The petitioner thereupon filed a contempt petition bearing No. 168/73 in this court making a grievance of the fact that the State Government had committed contempt of court by not implementing the directions given in the above referred decree passed by this court In F. A. No. 380/67. In reply to this petition, the then Deputy Secretary to the Government filed an affidavit, which contains some very important admissions in favour of the petitioner. These admissions have assumed good deal of importance in view of the stand which is now taken by both the Governments. In para 17 of his affidavit, which was filed in the month of August, 1973, the Deputy Secretary has stated as under :- "With reference to paras 17, 18 and 19 of the petition, I say that it is true that Shri P. M. Joshi and other officers must be treated as junior to the petitioner as on 1-11-1956 according to the judgment of Hon'ble Court and that the promotion of the petitioner to class I cadre must be treated before Shri Joshi who was an officer in class II cadre as on 1-11-1956." It is apparent from the admissions made in the affidavit that the main contention raised on behalf of the State of Gujarat was that it was primarily for the Government of Maharashtra to implement the directions given in the above referred decree of this court as from 1-11-1955 till 1-5-1960, the date on which the bilingual State of Bombay was bifurcated into States of Maharashtra and Gujarat. In this connection, the said Deputy Secretary has further stated as under in the said affidavit: "I say that the officers of the State of Gujarat have even expressed their willingness to go to Bombay, to sit across the table and finalise the matter as expeditiously as possible I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the said correspondence which has been annexed with this petition, I say that the seniority of the petitioner in class II cadre must be corrected. I say that it is also true that the petitioner must be shown above all class II officers who were promoted after 1-11-1956. I say that the petitioner will be given due consideration in the seniority list as soon as the State of Maharashtra re-fixes his seniority." (emphasis supplied) As for the delay in implementation of the directions contained in the decree the said deponent has further stated that unless and until the State of Maharashtra fixed the seniority of the petitioner nothing could be done by the State of Gujarat at that stage, 8. It is found that in this contempt petition, the Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the State of Gujarat, made a statement before the court that the case of the petitioner would be taken up at higher level than it had been done until then. On this statement, the petitioner withdrew the contempt petition. However, no further development took place for several months. 9. Thereafter on 7th February, 1974 the Government of Maharashtra, by a resolution, published the seniority list of class I officers in the Bombay Education Service as on 30th April, 1960 (the day before the formation of the State of Gujarat), but the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in this list. The case of the petitioner is that if the decree passed by this court in F.A. No. 380/67 was implemented, his name in the above seniority list should have been placed before one Miss S.S. Bagee at Sr. No. 45, who was promoted from class II to class I post on 30th October, 1956. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to get the deemed due for the purpose of promotion from class II to class I post on 30th October, 1956 and, therefore, the Government of Maharashtra ought to have shown his name above Miss Bagee. At Annexure D in the record of the Special Civil Application is the copy of this seniority list published by the Government of Maharashtra on 7th February, 1974. 10. The facts recorded in the case further show that even after the formation of the State of Gujarat, the petitioner continued to remain on class II post in the State Education Service. He however got his first promotion in the year 1960 as Accounts Officer (Scholarship). Thereafter on December 21, 1967 he was promoted to class I service as District Education Officer. He however got his first promotion in the year 1960 as Accounts Officer (Scholarship). Thereafter on December 21, 1967 he was promoted to class I service as District Education Officer. His further promotion in class I service took place in August, 1973 as State Survey Officer, which appears to be a post equivalent to the post of Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner got still further promotion in the Gujarat service on 16-5-74 when he was appointed as Chairman of the State Examination Board. From this post, he retired on 4-8-75. 11. Though the petitioner has got the above referred promotions in the State of Gujarat from the year 1966 onwards, his grievance is that the question about the fixing his seniority and giving him promotions in accordance with that seniority was continuously avoided by both the Governments. When he found that the Government of Maharashtra, while had published the seniority list of class I officers as per its resolution dated 7-2-1974, did not mention his name, he approached this court by filing this Special Civil Application on 3-4-1974 to obtain the directions against the respondent States to revise the final seniority list as on November 1, 1956 and to show his name at the top of all class II officers of Bombay Education Service (Administrative Branch) and to give promotions to him accordingly. 12. This Special Civil Application came to be heard by S.H. Sheth, J. who dismissed it summarily by observing that the remedy of the petitioner lay in executing the decree passed by this Court in F. A. No 380/67. The learned single Judge took the view that the petitioner could not institute another independent proceeding for the same relief and try to make out what he might be missing in the decree. 13. Being aggrieved by this summary dismissal of his writ petition, the petitioner has approached this court by preferring this appeal. The appeal was preferred on 17-6-74. Initially notice was issued to both the respondents-States and ultimately on 30-9-74 the appeal was admitted and the rule was made returnable in the month of November, 1974. 14. 13. Being aggrieved by this summary dismissal of his writ petition, the petitioner has approached this court by preferring this appeal. The appeal was preferred on 17-6-74. Initially notice was issued to both the respondents-States and ultimately on 30-9-74 the appeal was admitted and the rule was made returnable in the month of November, 1974. 14. In the meanwhile on 29th July 1974, the Government of Maharashtra in the Education Department passed the following order as regards the absorption of the services of the petitioner : "In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 30 of the Constitution of India and in accordance with the decision of the Government of India, communicated by the Government of Gujarat, the Government of Maharashtra is pleased to direct that the post of the Planning Officer of the Ex-Saurashtra State should be placed as an isolated category between the B.E.S. Class cadres. Shri S. P. Shukla who was holding the post of the Planning Officer in the Ex-Saurashtra State should be absorbed in that post and his seniority should be fixed above all the names of persons absorbed in B.E.S. class II (Admn. Branch) under Government Order, Education and Social Welfare Department No. SAT-J 169-B dated 25-11-69. The entries in the accompanying statements should therefore be added above all the persons in the accompaniment to the Government order, Education and Social Welfare Department No. SAT-169-B dated 25-11-1969. The Government is further pleased to direct that the entry at Serial No. 162 in the accompaniment to Government order, Education and Social Welfare Department No. SAT-1169-B dated 25-11-1969 should be deleted". To this order there was an accompaniment showing the gradation list wherein under the heading of post of Absorption, the post of the petitioner is shown "isolated category between B.E.S Class I and B.E.S. Class II". This resolution of the Government of Maharashtra makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was shown above all class II servants of Bombay Education Service and accordingly the entry at Sr. No. 162 where his name was previously shown, was ordered to be deleted. 15. Thereafter on March 18, 1975, one Mr. P. M. Chhaya, Under Secretary of the Government of Gujarat in Education and Labour Department filed his affidavit on behalf of the Government of Gujarat in this appeal. No. 162 where his name was previously shown, was ordered to be deleted. 15. Thereafter on March 18, 1975, one Mr. P. M. Chhaya, Under Secretary of the Government of Gujarat in Education and Labour Department filed his affidavit on behalf of the Government of Gujarat in this appeal. The contentions raised in this affidavit assume some importance because ultimately the State of Gujarat resisted has this petition on altogether different and contrary contentions. Therefore, we shall shortly make are reference to the contentions raised in this affidavit of Mr. Chhaya. Reference to para 7 of this affidavit reveals that the State of Gujarat has sought to justify its action in not implementing the decree of this court in the FA No. 380/67 by throwing the entire blame on the Maharashtra Government and by contending that the State of Gujarat had in fact promoted the petitioner to various posts as stated above. Contrary to its present stand, the State of Gujarat has not stated anywhere in this affidavit that the above referred promotions given to the petitioner were "highly irregular and illegal" or "merely fortuitious" as contended in the subsequent affidavit filed on its behalf by one V. S. Shah on 13-4-76. In this paragraph, it is stated that the petitioner was promoted to officiate as Chairman of State Examinations Board with effect from 16th May, 1974 and that in the set up of the Education Department of the State of Gujarat, the only higher post, for which the petitioner could aspire, was that of Chairman S. S. C. Board and that of Joint Director of Education. However, the present incumbents on those posts were due to retire respectively on 24th April, 1982 and 30th July, 1975, while the petitioner was due to retire on 5th August, 1975, and, therefore, it was not possible to give any further promotion to the petitioner. It should be mentioned here that at that time one P.C. Parikh was Joint Director but if the petitioner's seniority was implemented as stated above, this P.C. Parikh was liable to be reverted as the petitioner was likely to get seniority over him. 16. It should be mentioned here that at that time one P.C. Parikh was Joint Director but if the petitioner's seniority was implemented as stated above, this P.C. Parikh was liable to be reverted as the petitioner was likely to get seniority over him. 16. Here it should be stated that this P.C. Parikh had filed Civil Suit No. 674/73 in the City Civil Court, Ahemedabad, for obtaining a declaration that the resolution of the State of Gujarat dated 11th May, 1972 by which the petitioner was becoming senior to all class II servants of the Education Department, was, illegal and should, therefore, be set aside. Mr Parikh failed in getting this declaration, by the decree of the City Court dated 30th November, 1973. The allegation of the petitioner is that the State Government intentional) delayed the implementation of its resolution dated 11th May, 1972 with a view to protect the interest of Mr. Parikh. 7th May, 1976 17. Proceeding further with the affidavit of Shri Chaya, reference to paras 8 and 9 thereof shows that the only plea raised by the Government of Gujarat to explain delay was that it was for the Government of Maharastra to work out the seniority and subsequent promotions of the petitioners for the period from 1-11-56 to 1-5-60 and for this purpose the confidential record of the petitioner was sent to that Government on 8-11-74. There is nothing in this affidavit to show that but for the said decision of the Government of Maharashtra, the Government of Gujarat had any other difficulty in giving the petitioner bis due seniority and promotions. 18. One fact which is however interesting to note is that in this affidavit of Mr. Chhaya. the Government of Gujarat put reliance upon one circular of the Government of Bombay dated 30-3-60 which was annexed to the affidavit as annexure III. By this circular, the Government had unilaterally decided not to give arrears of pay to the servants whose seniority was granted with retrospective effect. Reliance on this circular meant an open defiance of the decree passed by this court in F.A. 380/67. 19. It is clear that by this affidavit, the State Government wanted to go back on the assurances given by the Deputy Secretary in previous contempt petition No. 168/73, the relevant excerpts from which are already quoted above. Reliance on this circular meant an open defiance of the decree passed by this court in F.A. 380/67. 19. It is clear that by this affidavit, the State Government wanted to go back on the assurances given by the Deputy Secretary in previous contempt petition No. 168/73, the relevant excerpts from which are already quoted above. The petitioner, therefore, filed second contempt petition bearing No. 106/75 on 18-3-1975. That contempt petition came before the same Division Bench which was seized of this L. P. A. During the hearing of that contempt petition, the learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the State of Gujarat, made a statement before the court that the resolution dated March 10, 1960 of old Bombay State and another similar resolution dated August 29, 1969 of the State of Gujarat, were not applicable to the facts of this case and the decree of this court in F. A. 380/67 ordering the payment of the salary etc. made in favour of the petitioner, should be implemented. He gave an assurance that the Government would pay the salary and allowances from the date of the appointment of (be petitioner as might be fixed by the Maharashtra Government and shall immediately pay the salary and allowance to the petitioner from May, 1960, the date on which the State of Gujarat was formed, on this assurance, this Court discharged the rule by its order dated 25-4-1975. This fact is evident from Annexure 'X'. 20. Here it should be mentioned that in his further affidavit, which is filed by the petitioner on 5th August, 1975, the petitioner has come out with specific allegations that though he was deputed to the post of Director, Gujarat State Board of School Text Books on or about October 30, 1974, on specific understanding that after his retirement he would be continued on that post, up to the age of 60 years, the Government did not continue him on that post as he had filed the above referred contempt petition against some of its officers. So far as the merits of this case are concerned, we are not concerned with these allegations but these allegations have got some importance in view of the fact that m the ultimate amended petition on which the final arguments were advanced by the parties, the petitioner has come out with specific allegations against Mr. So far as the merits of this case are concerned, we are not concerned with these allegations but these allegations have got some importance in view of the fact that m the ultimate amended petition on which the final arguments were advanced by the parties, the petitioner has come out with specific allegations against Mr. Chhaya, who has filed the affidavit on behalf of the Government and has contended that ultimately the papers with regard to his case have been prepared by Mr. chhaya, who bore hostility against him as he was one of the persons against whom the contempt application was made. We shall deal with this part of the petition at a subsequent stage. 21. While this appeal was pending, the Government of Maharashtra passed a resolution on 31st May, 1975 fixing the deemed date of the promotion of the petitioner in class I cadre of Education servants. The deemed date so given by the said Government is December 7, 1956 though the date of absorption was 1st November, 1956 as ordered by the Central Government. This resolution is very important and it runs as under: - "Under the orders issued in Government Order, Education Department No. INT-1072-B dated 29-7-1974, seniority of Shri S.P Shukla who has been absorbed as Planning Officer has been fixed above all the officers absorbed in B.E.S. Class II (Adm. Branch) as on 1-11-1956. The promotions made to B.E.S Class I (Admn. Br.). After 1-11-1956 have been reviewed in the light of the final gradation list as on 1-11-1956 and it has been decided to assign to Shri S. P. Shukla, 7-12-1956 as the deemed date of promotion to the post of Research Officer in B.E.S. Class I (Adm. Br.) in pursuance of orders issued in Government Circular, Political and Service Department No. SR/INT-1959-VI dated 10-3-1960". As the State of Maharashtra has not filed any affidavit, it is not possible to know on what basis the petitioner is given deemed date of December 7, 1956. However, from the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat, by one V. S. Shah, the Section Officer, Education and Labour Department, it is found that on 3rd April, 1975 under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Education Department, had addressed a letter to the Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission with regard to the deemed date of the promotion of the petitioner. A copy of this letter is found at Annexure II to the said affidavit. It contains the following observations which seek to explain why the petitioner was given the deemed date of 7th December, 1956: "Shri Shukla being the senior most officer in Class II, his claim for promotion to the post first post falling vacant after 1-11-1956 has to be considered. A copy of the statement showing service particulars and experience of Shri Shukla is enclosed. It will be seen therefrom that Shri Shukla does not possess training qualification, which is ordinarily required for post in the B.E.S. class 1 (Admn. Br.). There was, however, a post of Research Officer in B.E.S. Class I for which no training qualifications were required. There were no specific recruitment rules for this post in the year 1956. At the time of reorganisation of States, this post was held by Shri U.R. Sevlekar from 5-5-1956 to 6-12-1956 i.e. till the date of his transfer to the post of Education Inspector, Sholapur. The post became vacant for the first time after 1-11-1956 on 7-12-1956. Shri Shukla being the senior most officer would, therefore, become eligible for promotion to this Dost with effect from 7-12-1956, had the gradation list been finalished on 1-11-1956. It is, therefore, proposed to hod Shri Shukla eligible for promotion to this post and to assign him 7-12-56 as the deemed date of promotion to this post." (Emphasis supplied) It is evident from this letter of the Under Secretary, that Maharashtra Government has preferred the deemed date of 7th December, 1956. as in its opinion, the petitioner required "training qualification" for being promoted to class I post in the Education Services and since he had no such qualifications, only the post of Research Officer, which did not require any such qualification, was available for his promotion. As discussed subsequently, we are of the opinion that it was wholly wrong to insist upon "training qualification" for the purpose of giving promotion to this petitioner. The record of the case does not contain any other material to show whether the petitioner could not have got any earlier deemed date for his promotion than 7-12-56, had the Government of Maharashtra not insisted up in the training qualification in his case. The record of the case does not contain any other material to show whether the petitioner could not have got any earlier deemed date for his promotion than 7-12-56, had the Government of Maharashtra not insisted up in the training qualification in his case. The question whether the training qualifications were needed in the case of the petitioner, or not, will be discussed by us at a subsequent stage, but for the present, it would be sufficient to mention that the petitioner has challenged this deemed date of his promotion as given by the Maharashtra Government in its resolution dated 31st May, 1973. 22. After the above resolution was issued by the Maharashtra Government, the petitioner sought an amendment to his main petition with a view to enable him to make suitable averments. This amendment was granted by the Court by its order dated 30th March, 1976. 23. While the said amendment petition was pending there were some developments which should be mentioned at this stage. During the pendency of the L.P.A. the court made several attempts to see that some compromise formula was evolved between the parties. On account of this attempt of the court, the matter was delayed and certain sittings of the court were consumed in enabling the parties to negotiate the matter. During one such sitting on 1st September, 1975, the court passed the following interim order; "Government is directed to consider the promotions withheld from 7-12-56 till 4-8-1975 before October 6, 1975, and to pay to the petitioner all his dues before October 8, 1975. So this he placed on 9th October, 1975." Thus, after knowing that the Government of Maharashtra has given the deemed date of 7th December, 1956 for the purpose of promotion of the petitioner, the court found that the Government of Gujarat could have 1 no reason to delay the matter and, therefore, the court passed the above order by which it directed the Government to pay to the petitioner all his dues resulting from the said promotion as well as consequent promotion from 7-12-56 to 4-8-75. In order to see that the matter was expedited, the court also ordered that all the dues of the petitioner should be paid before 8th October, 1975. 24. In order to see that the matter was expedited, the court also ordered that all the dues of the petitioner should be paid before 8th October, 1975. 24. However, nothing happened but the Government of Gujarat in the Education and Labour Department passed one resolution on 26th September, 1975, the practical effect of which was to wipe out ail the advantages, which the petitioner had as a result of his absorption on intermediate post between class I and class II servants of Education department. Now this resolution is the subject matter of this petition and, therefore, it is hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned resolution'. It is in the following terms: "Shri S.P. Shukla, retired Director, State Text Books Board, Ahmedabad, has been given deemed date of promotion as R.O. with effect from 7.12.56 under the Government of Maharashtra, Education Department, G. R. No. INT-1070-B dt. 31-5-75. As a result of the deemed date given to him in class I on an isolated post by the Government of Maharashtra, the question of his further promotion as from 1-5-1960 to 4-8-1975 (when he retired from service) was engaging attention of Government for some time past. After careful consideration, the Government is pleased to decide as follows: (1) Shri Shukla should be deemed to have been allocated as R. O. with effect from 1-5-1960. (2) He was not eligible for any further promotion till 30-4-1960, as decided by the Maharashtra Government. (3) He is allocated as R. O. with effect from 1-5-1960. The post is treated as a specialist post, for which a separate R/R has been prescribed by Govt., under Govt. Notification No. VVA-1177/ 35409(i) L dated 31-1-72. Secondly, there is no post sanctioned in the set up of the Education Deptt. to which a R. O. could be promoted. Consequently, Shri Shukla cannot be promoted to any higher post beyond the post of R. O. till 4-8-1975. 2. The arrears, if any, which may be due to Shri Shukla, as a result of the deemed date in class I till the date of his retirement should be paid to him immediately in accordance with the orders issued in G. R. E. & L. D. No. VVA-1074-52547-L dt. 29-9-75." 3. 2. The arrears, if any, which may be due to Shri Shukla, as a result of the deemed date in class I till the date of his retirement should be paid to him immediately in accordance with the orders issued in G. R. E. & L. D. No. VVA-1074-52547-L dt. 29-9-75." 3. Shri Shukla was promoted as State Survey Officer in August, 973.and later as Chairman State Examination Board In May, 1974, before the deemed date certificate now given by the Govt., of Maharashtra was available. In view of para 1 (d) above, it has therefore been decided that his further promotions beyond the post of R. O. already given to him tentatively by Govt., should be treated as valid, as a special case, notwithstanding the decision of the Government that he could not have been promoted earlier to these posts." The Government of Gujarat now claims that by this resolution it has implemented the entire directions given by this court to give promotions and to make the payment of all his dues to the petitioner before 8th October, 1975. The contention of the petitioner is that by this resolution the Government of Gujarat wiped out all the advantages he was entitled to by a back-door method. We shall touch the merits of this resolution at a subsequent stage. It should, however, be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner sought an amendment in his main petition to challenge this resolution and to make an appropriate prayer with regard to it. 25. The application of the petitioner for allowing all the above referred amendments was finally heard by this court on 30th March, 1976. During the course of that hearing, even the order passed by the learned Single Judge, summarily dismissing the original petition, was taken into consideration. My learned brother speaking for this Bench, has recorded the order in this connection wherein the order of summarily dismissal passed by the learned single Judge has been set aside and the view of the learned single Judge that the remedy of the petitioner lies in executing the decree passed by this court in F. A. No. 380/67 has been dealt with in the following observations: - "...the only way in which the petitioner can get speedy implementation of this statutory duty was only by approaching this court by a writ of mandamus asking the concerned Governments to perform their statutory duties. This was not a proceeding for execution in any manner and the executing court could never exercise those functions of giving promotion or giving deemed date. Therefore, with great respect, the learned single Judge was in error in assuming that this was not an independent proceeding but merely claiming the same relief as in F.A. No. 380/67. The petitioner was not re-agitating the same question concluded by F.A. No. 380 of 1967 but only was requiring the concerned State Governments to perform their statutory duties as per law. In such cases, when there is a gross unexplained delay because of the inherent lethargy of bureaucratic system, mandamus is always known as settled remedy at the administrative law. Therefore, on this short ground; this petition could never have been summarily rejected." After saying this, this Bench considered the prayer of the petitioner to amend the petition on its merits and allowed the amendments which were prayed for. Thereafter the rule on the main petition was made returnable on 13th April, 1976, and both the learned Government Pleaders for both the States waived Service of the rule so that the matter could be expedited. The court further ordered the State Governments to file affidavit in reply on or before 13th April, 1976. 26. The State of Gujarat has filed its affidavit through its Section Officer one Mr. V. S. Shah, but the State of Maharashtra has not preferred to file any affidavit in spite of some adjournments given for that purpose. 27. We shall now shortly state the pleas raised by the State of Gujarat in its affidavit in reply. The main plea which is raised is that promotion to the cadre of class I service in the Education Department "ordinarily" required training qualifications and since the petitioner did not possess any such training qualifications, he could not be promoted further from the post of Research Officer. Now as we have already noted above, the State of Gujarat has, in fact, given promotions to the petitioner in the cadre class I servant in the Education Department right from the year 1966. With regard to these promotions, the State of Gujarat has raised a rather curious plea by stating that all these promotions were "highly irregular and illegal "(vide para (k) of the affidavit in reply). In para (n) of the affidavit in reply, the State Government has referred to one letter dt. With regard to these promotions, the State of Gujarat has raised a rather curious plea by stating that all these promotions were "highly irregular and illegal "(vide para (k) of the affidavit in reply). In para (n) of the affidavit in reply, the State Government has referred to one letter dt. 21-8-1975 of the Government of Maharashtra and has stated a short summary of that letter in that paragraph in the following words: "It has further been stated in the said letter of the Government of Maharashtra dt. 21-8-75 already referred to above, that the petitioner's juniors were not promoted in these posts with super- added clause and mentioned that the petitioner also did not possess training qualifications which would have rendered him eligible for promotion to any of the above referred two posts." We had directed Shri Shah, who appeared on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra, to produce a copy of that letter but he has not preferred to do so. He has rather preferred to rely upon the above referred letter of the Under Secretary of the Maharashtra Government dt. 3rd April, 1975 addressed to the Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission, because even this letter contains similar remarks. In para (o) of the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the State of Gujarat, a contention is taken that the post of Research Officer in the ex-Bombay State was an isolated post and for which no specific recruitment qualifications had been laid down in the year 1956 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any further promotions from the R.O's. post. In subsequent paragraphs the main burden of the contention raised on behalf of the Government of Gujarat is that promotion, which the petitioner got in the State of Gujarat from the year 1966 onwards, were, "stop-gap" and "fortuitous" promotions. 28. Looking to these averments of the State of Gujarat, the petitioner filed third contempt petition, which is petition No. 357/75 and which is heard along with this L P. A. 29. It is evident from the above stated facts that the petitioner was initially absorbed in a class II post, soon after the integration of the erstwhile State of Bombay and Saurashtra and that after the Central Govt., decided in favour of the petitioner, the Gujarat Government passed resolution dt. It is evident from the above stated facts that the petitioner was initially absorbed in a class II post, soon after the integration of the erstwhile State of Bombay and Saurashtra and that after the Central Govt., decided in favour of the petitioner, the Gujarat Government passed resolution dt. 11-5-72 equating the post of the Planning Officer, which the petitioner held in Saurashtra with an "intermediate category" between class I and II posts of Bombay Education service as on 1-11-1956. It was pursuant to this that this court gave above quoted directions in F. A. No. 380/67 to implement the said resolution with retrospective effect from 1-11-56 and directed the State Government to grant ail consequential reliefs pertaining to the promotion, salary and other allowances permissible under the law to the petitioner. 30. The facts further show that the State of Gujarat went on delaying the implementation of the said decree on the ground that the Government of Maharashtra had not taken any decision in the matter. As already noted above, though sufficient time was given to the Government of Maharashtra to file its affidavit on the subject, the said State has, for the reasons best known to it, not filed any affidavit and has not explained why the implementation of the said decree passed by this court was delayed. 31. Be that as it may, it becomes apparent from the relevant facts stated above, that the petitioner could not get any promotion over the post of Research Officer as the Maharashtra Government took the view that he was not eligible to any other higher post in view of the fact that he was not having the requisite training qualifications, which were required for class I officers of Bombay Education Service. We can understand the Maharashtra Government taking this stand but it is difficult for us to understand how the Government of Gujarat could have taken this stand in view of certain admissions which were made by its Deputy Secretary in the first contempt petition No. 168/73. We have quoted the relevant portions from these affidavits of the said Deputy Secretary in the foregoing portion of this judgment. Therein the Government of Gujarat has committed itself to the statement that Mr. We have quoted the relevant portions from these affidavits of the said Deputy Secretary in the foregoing portion of this judgment. Therein the Government of Gujarat has committed itself to the statement that Mr. P. K. Joshi and other officers, who were shown senior to the petitioner, must be treated as junior to the petitioner as on 1st November, 1956 and that the case of the petitioner should be given due consideration in the seniority list as soon as the Government of Maharashtra fixed his seniority. In spite of this definite admission made on behalf of the State of Gujarat, the State of Gujarat has now taken a summersault and has denied the petitioner's claim of his seniority over Shri P. M. Joshi and others. 32. It should further be noted that even in his affidavit in reply filed by Shri Chhaya on 18th March, 1975, as Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat in Education and Labour Department, he has not raised any plea to show that the promotions given by the State of Gujarat to the petitioner from 1966 onwards, were "illegal", "irregular" or "fortuitous". It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the Government of Gujarat to turn round and say that its own actions taken in the past were illegal and irregular. Such a plea raised on behalf of the State of Gujarat gives credence to me petitioner's suspicion that his due promotions are withheld by the State out of extraneous considerations. In this connection, it would also be not out of place to note that the said Under Secretary Mr. Chhaya has filed one affidavit in Civil Suit No. 464/73, which was filed by above named Mr. P. C. Parikh in the City Civil Court, Ahmedadad. A copy of this affidavit is produced in the record of this case and it shows that therein also Mr. Chhaya has made a definite denial of the allegations of Mr. Parikh that the present petitioner never belonged to any regular cadre. P. C. Parikh in the City Civil Court, Ahmedadad. A copy of this affidavit is produced in the record of this case and it shows that therein also Mr. Chhaya has made a definite denial of the allegations of Mr. Parikh that the present petitioner never belonged to any regular cadre. In that affidavit he has specifically asserted that immediately on his absorption in Bombay Education Service Class II cadre, the petitioner belonged to that cadre and thereafter by orders of the Government and direction of the Central Government, his seniority was fixed above all persons in Bombay Education Service Class II and on and from 1st November, 1956 the present petitioner was placed in the intermediate category after class I and above class II employees. He has also contended in that affidavit that for the purpose of absorption in the cadre of Education Department, no minimum qualification had been prescribed under S.R.O.F. or A. G. S. Rules. This particular averment in the affidavit is quite contrary to the stand at present taken by the State of Gujarat. Mr. Chhaya has, in that affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of Gujarat, also defended the justification of the absorption of the petitioner in the intermediate category between class I and II Servants of Education Service. 33. These facts clearly reveal the shifting nature of the pleas raised by the Government of Gujarat in this case. 34. Be that as it may, the question which now remains to be considered is whether the stand taken by both the Governments as regards the necessarily of training qualifications for the purpose of further promotion of the petitioner is justified or not. We shall, therefore, now presently proceed to consider that question. 35. It was contended on behalf of both the States that the petitioner's absorption was on the post of "isolated" category and, therefore, the absorption of the services of the petitioner in the new set up, cannot be construed as within the cadre and should be construed as on a specialist post, which had its own peculiarities. We find that there is good deal of misconception in this plea of both the States. The post on which the petitioner was expected to be absorbed is described in the Gujarat Government Resolution of 11th May, 1972 as of "intermediate" category. The word "isolated" is not found there. We find that there is good deal of misconception in this plea of both the States. The post on which the petitioner was expected to be absorbed is described in the Gujarat Government Resolution of 11th May, 1972 as of "intermediate" category. The word "isolated" is not found there. This word appears for the first time in the order of the Maharashtra Government dt. 29th July, 1974, to which reference is already made above. The question, however, is: does it make any difference ? Call it an "intermediate" category or call it an "isolated" category, the fact remains that the category of post in which the petitioner's services were absorbed was in the cadre of Bombay Education Services and was between the class I and II servants. It, therefore, follows that the seniority of the petitioner should be at the top of all class II servants as on 1-11-1956 but below all class I servants as on that date. If once it is believed that the petitioner's services were absorbed in the Education Services of the Bombay State, the nomenclature of the category, which was given to him, becomes totally irrelevant. In substance, it was a post which entitled the petitioner to get seniority over all class II servants as on 1st November, 1956, That is the sum and substance of the above referred two resolutions of the Government of Gujarat and the Government of Maharashtra respectively dated 11th May, 1972 and 29th July, 1974. 36. The next contention which was raised on behalf of both the respondents-Governments was that the absorption of petitioner's services was in the Research Officer's post and since this post did not require any training qualifications and also because this post was of an "isolated" category, the petitioner could not claim any further promotion from that post. This contention, is, really speaking, the contention of the Maharashtra State, because, it is an admitted position that right from 1-5-1960 till the year 1964, the Government of Gujarat had not filled in the post of Research Officer and that the Circular embodying the principles of recruitment to the post of Research Officer was, for the first time, issued by the Government of Gujarat in the month of January, 1972. Under the circumstances, it would be for the Government of Maharashtra to show that the recruitment to the post of Research Officer in the erstwhile State of Bombay did not require any training qualifications. The Maharashtra Government has not filed any affidavit and there is nothing in the evidence to show that this proposition is correct. But even if it is believed to be correct, it was the Government of Maharashtra, which was responsible for absorbing the petitioner in the post of Research Officer. As will be seen subsequently, we are of the opinion that in fact no training qualifications were required for the purpose of promotion to class I post from class II post in the Education Service (Admn. Br.) of the erstwhile State of Bombay. Under the circumstances, we find that the Government of Maharashtra was not justified in absorbing the services of the petitioner in the Research Officer's post on the ground that other posts required training qualifications. 37. In this connection we would refer to the Bombay Services (Classification & Recruitment) Rules, which were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by cl. (b) of sub-sec. (I) and cl. (b) of sub-sec (2) of sec, 241 and section 255 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Rule 7 thereof enabled the Government to prescribe qualifications in respect of age and education which would be required to be possessed by candidates for admission to the Provincial and Subordinate Services. These qualifications have been stated in Appendices C. and D. Sec. 4 of Appendix C provides for recruitment rules for Bombay Education Services. Para 48 thereof says that there shall be two branches of the Educational Services, viz., the Collegiate Branch and the Administrative Branch. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in the Administrative Branch. According to this rule, the personnel of Educational Services is divided into two classes, namely, class I and classes II. According to para 49, appointments to these two classes should be made by direct recruitment or by promotion. Recruitment by promotion can be made from the officers already in Service under the Government of Bombay provided that seniority by itself should not constitute the ground for preference, Then follows rules 50 and 51 which are about the recruitment of direct recruits. These rules do provide either for teaching experience or teaching qualifications. Recruitment by promotion can be made from the officers already in Service under the Government of Bombay provided that seniority by itself should not constitute the ground for preference, Then follows rules 50 and 51 which are about the recruitment of direct recruits. These rules do provide either for teaching experience or teaching qualifications. Sub-rule (4)of rule 51 is about the appointment by direct recruitment to class II services and provides that the candidate concerned should "ordinarily" possess a degree in or diploma of education of the Bombay University or of a statutory Indian, British or Foreign University or the diploma of Education of a recognised Indian or Foreign Institution. Thus, these rules do provide either for some training qualifications or experience of teaching so far as the direct recruits are concerned. But so far as the promotees are concerned, there is no such rule which requires training experience or qualifications. The reason for not insisting on any training qualifications in case of promotions appears to be that the promotees would necessarily have some such experience during the course of service rendered by them. The only requirement about the promotees is that in their case, seniority by itself would not constitute a ground for preference. In other words, no officer already in service can claim promotion to higher post merely on the ground of the length of his service. This rule, therefore, obviously insists upon a seniority-cum-merit formula, which means that the promotion could be claimed not merely on the strength of seniority but, over and above, the seniority, the merits also should be taken into consideration. Such promotions are generally made on the criterion that seniority would be honoured unless the person concerned is found to be unfit for the post. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is nothing in these Rules to show that for the officers, who are already in service, training qualification or experience is one of the requirements for promotion to higher post. We are not shown any other rule which insists upon the requirement of a training qualification for such purposes. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is nothing in these Rules to show that for the officers, who are already in service, training qualification or experience is one of the requirements for promotion to higher post. We are not shown any other rule which insists upon the requirement of a training qualification for such purposes. Rule 49, to which we have made reference, is obviously a statutory rule which is framed under the relevant provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935 and even if it is found that the Government of Maharashtra or the Government of Bombay had made it a practice to give promotions to class I posts only to those officers who were possessing training qualifications, the said practice cannot obviously override the provisions of statutory Rules. In this connection it is of some significance to note that even the letter of the Under Secretary of tin Government of Maharashtra dated 3rd April, 1975 addressed to the Secretary, Maharastra Public Service Commission, contains a statement that the training qualification is "ordinarily" required for the post in B.E. S-Class 1. The emphasis on the word "ordinarily" is significant because it shows that it was not an invariable practice to insist upon training qualifications for the purpose of promotion to class 1 services. If there was any statutory Rule which insisted upon training qualifications, the word "ordinarily" would not have been used, because, statutory rules must be obeyed and carried out. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Maharashtra Government that the petitioner could not be promoted further from the post of Research Officer, as he did not possess any training qualification, is patently wrong and, if that is so, the Maharashtra Government ought to have given deemed date to the petitioner for his promotion without insisting upon training qualifications and should have also given subsequent promotions due to him. 38. In this connection it would not be out of place to note that even the Government of Gujarat seems to have framed some recruitment Rules for recruitment to the Gujarat Educational Service Class I (Administrative Branch) in the year 1969. Even those Rules do not show that promotees should have training qualifications. 38. In this connection it would not be out of place to note that even the Government of Gujarat seems to have framed some recruitment Rules for recruitment to the Gujarat Educational Service Class I (Administrative Branch) in the year 1969. Even those Rules do not show that promotees should have training qualifications. Clause (i) of rule 2 says that promotion to class I service of Gujarat Education Service can be made by promotion of persons of proved merit and efficiency in the Gujarat Education Service Class II (Administrative Branch). The rules which follow are the rules about the appointment by direct selection. Those, who are appointed by direct selection do require training qualifications, but no such training qualifications are prescribed so far as the promotees are concerned. 39. It is thus clear that both according to the Bombay Civil, Services Classification and Recruitment Rules, as well as the Gujarat Rules promotees to Education service class I do not require any training qualifications. 40. In this connection it is of some interest to note that the Rules framed by the Government of Gujarat for recruitment to the Gujarat Education Service make a clear distinction between the administrative branch and the Collegiate branch of this department. These rules show that so far as the administrative branch is concerned, training qualifications for the promotees are not insisted upon at all, but so far as the Collegiate branch is concerned, such qualification are insisted upon not only with regard to the direct recruits but also with regard to the promotees. This is apparent from the compilation of different Rules framed by the Government of Gujarat for the Offices of the Director of Education, the Director of Technical Education and Director of Youth Services-vol. 1. By reference to different Rules, we are convinced that in all cases where recruitment to the Collegiate branch is concerned, even the promotees are expected to have training qualifications. But so far as the administrative branch is concerned, different rules do not insist upon the requirement of training qualifications. The reason behind this distinction seems to be that one who joins the Collegiate branch, is expected to have some training in imparting education while one who joins the administrative branch does not necessarily require a training qualification because he is principally to attend to the work of administration. The reason behind this distinction seems to be that one who joins the Collegiate branch, is expected to have some training in imparting education while one who joins the administrative branch does not necessarily require a training qualification because he is principally to attend to the work of administration. It should be noted here that the petitioner was absorbed in the administrative branch of the Education Services and it was for this reason that when the State of Gujarat gave him different promotions, the necessity of having training qualifications was not insisted upon by the concerned authorities. 41. However, apart from the above-referred Rules, an important question which arises to be considered in this connection is whether it is open to any of these respondent-States to insist upon educational qualifications for further promotions when the petitioner is given a cadre post in the Educational Department itself at the time of the absorption of his services pursuant to the integration of the States of Saurashtra and Bombay. 42. The consideration of this aspect of the matter opens up some basic and fundamental implications of the process of integration of services of two integrating States. The Reorganisation of two States functioning under a federal Constitution is mostly the result of political and administrative necessity, wherein the personnel of public service has practically no voice. is for this reason that every scheme of such reorganisation of States always stipulates a protection of service conditions of all the servants of the two integrating States in the new set up. The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, under which the States of Bombay and Saurashtra were integrated, devotes the whole of its part 16 to this aspect. Sections 114 to 118, which are put in this part, make provisions as to the services of integrating States. Sub-sec. (7) of sec. 115 protects the servants of the integrating States by providing that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any personnel referred to in sub-section (1) or sub sec. (2) of that section shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Section 117 further provides that the Central Government may. (2) of that section shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Section 117 further provides that 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. These two provisions show that so far as the question of integration of services of the servants of the integrating States is concerned, the over-all control of all the questions of the integration is with the Central Government and the State Governments are bound to carry out the directions given by the Central Government. So far as the facts of this case are concerned, we find that such direction is already given by the Central Government inasmuch as it has directed that the service of the petitioner should be absorbed in a post which is intermediate between class I and II of the Bombay Education Service (Administrative Branch). 43. Now the process of integration and absorption as well as of fixing seniority of the allocated servants of different integrating States is governed by the Rules called "Allocated Government Servants (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1957". In order to know what is the effect of equation and absorption of the services of a particular servant or an integrating State, it is necessary to make a reference to some of the relevant provisions of these Rules. Rule 2(b) defines "equivalent post" as under : ""equivalent post" means (i) a post in the former State of Bombay or (ii) any other post which may be declared as equivalent to a post, whether permanent or temporary sanctioned by the Government of any of the former States of Madhya Pradesh, Hyderabad, Saurashtra and Kutch and held by an allocated Government servant immediately before the 1st November, 1956 in permanent or officiating or temporary capacity and hereinafter referred to as "the corresponding post in the former State". The expression "post of absorption" is defined in cl. The expression "post of absorption" is defined in cl. (e) as under : ""post of absorption" means the cadre or the post in the new State of Bombay in which an allocated Government servant is absorbed or is deemed to have been absorbed irrespective of whether the post is permanent or temporary." Rule 4 of these Rules provides for absorption, clause (i) of this rule 4 is relevant for our purpose. It is in the following terms : "4 (i) The appointing authority shall, as soon as it may be after the equivalent posts are declared by Government in respect of a Department issue an order absorbing an allocated Government servant, other than the one coveted by Rules (3) above, as on the 1st November, 1956 and such absorption shall be in an equivalent post." For the purpose of this matter, we are not concerned with the proviso and other clauses attached to this rules. Rule 7 (i) provides for seniority and the same is in the following terms : "(7) (i) Subject to the provisions herein after contained, seniority of an allocated Government servant in the post of cadre of absorption shall, as on the 1st November, 1956, be determined by the length of continuous service, whether officiating or permanent, rendered by him immediately before that date in the corresponding post or posts on the same time scale in the former State excluding periods of fortuitous appointments which are in the nature of stop-gap arrangements." On 24th April, 1959, the Government had given the following clarification as regards the absorption of allocated Government servants :- "(1) Absorption of allocated Government servant: - Orders of absorption and seniority of allocated Government servants should in all cases be issued with retrospective effect from 1st November, 1956, by the appointing authority concerned of the Department/Office in which they are finally absorbed, irrespective of the fact that they were initially attached to or appointed provisionally in any other Department/Office. A copy of such orders should also be forwarded to the Department/Office where they were posted provisionally." These are the relevant Rules which show the process of absorption and the fixation of the seniority of the person, who is absorbed. It is clear from the above-quoted rule 4(i) relating to absorption that declaration of equation must precede before services of a person are absorbed in the new set up. It is clear from the above-quoted rule 4(i) relating to absorption that declaration of equation must precede before services of a person are absorbed in the new set up. The authorities making equation were expected to take into account the following four principles before declaring equation formula :- 1. The nature of duties of a post. 2. Responsibilities and the powers exercised by the officer holding a post. 3. Extent of territorial and other charge held or responsibility discharged. 4. Minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and 5. The salary of the post. The petitioner's post as the Planning Officer in the ex-Saurashtra State is presumed to have been equated with a post in the intermediate category between class I and II officers of the Bombay Education Service only after bearing in mind the above stated four principles. Therefore, even if it is presumed that all the officers of class I and Class II of the Bombay Education Service required training qualification, the fact that the petitioner was absorbed in an intermediate category between class I and class II posts shows that, looking to other qualifications, equipment and experience of the petitioner, the authorities concerned did not find it necessary that the petitioner should possess any training qualification for the purpose of getting a post in class I or class II of the Bombay Education Service (Admn. Br.). The very fact of the petitioner's absorption in intermediate category of the Bombay Education services shows that his services were integrated without insisting upon the training qualifications. Thus, the training qualifications, having been once dispensed with, cannot be insisted upon for his future promotions. The whole process of equation, absorption and fixation of seniority, which is contemplated by the above referred Rules, shows that after a servant is absorbed as a result of proper equation in a particular post of a particular cadre, his services become an integral part of the main stream of that cadre. As has been observed by a Full Bench of this court in A.J. Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. A.I.R. 1965 Guj. 23 the words "to integrate" mean "to make whole or complete by adding or bringing together parts". The essence of integration is to make whole and not merely to put in juxtaposition. It is not therefore, correct to say that the word "integration" merely covers allotment. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. A.I.R. 1965 Guj. 23 the words "to integrate" mean "to make whole or complete by adding or bringing together parts". The essence of integration is to make whole and not merely to put in juxtaposition. It is not therefore, correct to say that the word "integration" merely covers allotment. The determination of equivalence of posts, the absorption in equivalent posts and the appointment of persons to such posts would form part of integration and would be covered by the expression "integration". Therefore any subsequent insistence about, (sic) the training qualifications, which were not insisted upon at the time of integration of the services of the petitioner would obviously nullify the order of equation and absorption passed by the Central Government. It is now a settled position in law that the Central Government is the final authority under sec. 117 of the States Reorganisation Act in all such matters, and hence, it is not open to any of the States to undo what the Central Government has done. If the services of the petitioner have become pare and parcel of them tin stream of the Bombay Education Service without any insistence on training qualifications, any subsequent insistence on these training qualifications for further promotion would amount to looking back of the genetics of those services after the integration. This would be tantamount to doing indirectly a thing which the Governments of both the States could not have directly done. If the result which both the Governments seek to achieve, was a possible result, the Central Government would not have equated the services of the petitioner in this manner. It is interesting to note that the Government of Gujarat has taken the present stand is these proceedings only after being inspired by the stand taken by the Maharashtra Government. If that were not so, the Government of Gujarat would not have given the promotions to the petitioner from the year 1966 onwards. We have already dealt with the untenability of the stand of the Government of Gujarat that these promotions were irregular, illegal and fortuitous. If that were not so, the Government of Gujarat would not have given the promotions to the petitioner from the year 1966 onwards. We have already dealt with the untenability of the stand of the Government of Gujarat that these promotions were irregular, illegal and fortuitous. It is stated that these promotions were given to the petitioner as a "special case." If that is so, there is no reason why the making of this "special case" should not have been carried further to its logical conclusions especially when the absorption of the petitioner's services in the cadre of the Bombay Education service was not the result of the exercise of his personal volition. In fact he had violently protested against this absorption, but the exigencies of administration required that ha should be absorbed only in the Education Department in spite of the fact that he did not possess any training qualifications. The idea of putting the petitioner at the top of all class 11 officers of the Education Services (Admn. Branch) was to see that the petitioner would get promotion to class I post, without any reservations, before any other officer of class II next below him would get that chance. Both the State Governments now want to see that this idea, which was at the back of integration and absorption of the petitioner's services, loses ail its practical utility. We have noticed, with great regret, the shifting stand, which the Government of Gujarat has taken in this case. We don't know how far this is the result of the attitude of the Under Secretary Shri Chhaya as alleged by the petitioner, The fact, however, remains that in view of the previous affidavits filed on behalf of the Government of Gujarat, and in view of the fact that want of training qualifications did not prevent the Government of Gujarat from giving further promotions to the petitioner in the past, the said Government should have shown greater objectivity and independence in dealing with the untenable stand taken in this connection by the Government of Maharashtra. In matters arising from integration of services, we have often noticed the Government of Gujarat taking a stand that the question in dispute could not be solved for want of a particular decision by the Government of Maharashtra. In matters arising from integration of services, we have often noticed the Government of Gujarat taking a stand that the question in dispute could not be solved for want of a particular decision by the Government of Maharashtra. Whenever the Government of Gujarat takes such a stand it should not be oblivious of the legal position that so far as the servants who are allotted to the State of Gujarat are concerned, it is the State of Gujarat which is primarily liable to them, and hence it is for the Government of that State of devise proper ways and means to deal effectively with the State of Maharashtra with a view to expedite the matter within reasonable time If a grievance of this type remains unsolved for a period of two decades, it smacks of "something" more than more inefficiency of the bureaucratic methods adopted by the Government concerned. We have not been able to avoid an impression that some powerful elements of the bureaucratic steel frame have up til now succeeded in their attempt to thwart all the legitimate gains which the petitioner obtained at the hands of the Central Government and this court. It is this "something" which brings down the credibility of the Government in the eyes of its own employees who gradually become frustrated and hostile to the whole administrative set up If a petitioner is repeatedly required to resort to contempt proceedings against the Government and if the Government representatives are required to find out alibies to avoid the consequences of these proceedings, it surely does not speak well of the Government administration Therefore, those who care to enhance the prestige of Government administration should try to avoid such situations. 44. In view of what is stated above, it follows that: 1. The petitioner did not require any training qualifications for further promotions from the post of Research Officer and was entitled to all the promotions in the Education Services of the erstwhile State of Bombay as well as the State of Gujarat, in the Administrative Branch, without any insistence on training qualifications ; 2. The deemed date of 7th December, 1956, which is given to the petitioner is not proper as it is based on the insistence on training qualifications. Therefore, the proper deemed date is required to be given to the petitioner in accordance with the relevant Rules; 3. The deemed date of 7th December, 1956, which is given to the petitioner is not proper as it is based on the insistence on training qualifications. Therefore, the proper deemed date is required to be given to the petitioner in accordance with the relevant Rules; 3. The promotions, which the petitioner got in the Gujarat Service from the year 1966 onwards, are found to be proper and the contention of Gujarat Government that they were irregular or illegal, or fortuitous, is rejected ; 4. The seniority as well as promotion of the petitioner is required to be freshly adjusted by both the Governments as per the observations made above right from the fresh deemed date which might be given to him. If any of the respondent Governments fails to work out the fresh deemed date within reasonable time, the date of 1st November, 1956 shall be treated as the deemed date of the first promotion of the petitioner in class I Education Services (Adm. Branch) and his subsequent further promotions shall be notionally worked out accordingly; 5. The pay and other emoluments of the petitioner are required to be fixed accordingly and the difference of payment should also be accordingly calculated and made to the petitioner within reasonable time. 45. This L. P. A. is accordingly allowed by making the rule absolute in terms stated in the above para 44. The petitioner shall be entitled to the costs of the main petition as well as this L.P.A. from both the States. The Respondents-States are directed to give a fresh deemed date of promotion to the petitioner and to work out the notional promotions, which were due to him from 1st November, 1956 to 30th April, 1960 and further from 1st May, 1960 up to the date of his retirement which is 4th August, 1975. The respondents-States are also directed to work out the difference in salary and emoluments which would be due to the petitioner in accordance with these promotions, and to pay the same to the petitioner without any delay. 46. The observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. C.R. Sheshadari, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 460 are the observations which would be applicable to the facts of the present case also. 46. The observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. C.R. Sheshadari, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 460 are the observations which would be applicable to the facts of the present case also. As observed by their Lordships in that case, the length of the litigation has really disappointed the petitioner who is denied the enjoyment of likely promotions. In terms of the ultimate order passed by the Supreme Court in that case, we direct the respondents State Governments to consider promptly the claim of the petitioner in the light of our observations and make the payment of what is his due-if so found-on or before 31st July, 1976. In case of any delay or difficulty in carrying out the terms of this order, parties would be at liberty to apply.