Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. The petitioners are 'officers in the Forest Department of the State of Bihar and have claimed promotion to the Indian Forest Service. There is also a 'prayer for quashing the notification (Annexure 10 to the writ application) whereby Respondents 5 and 6 have been included in that Service. 2. The petitioners were appointed Forest Rangers on 3-4-1951. Their case is that by a memorandum dated the 20th January, 1961 of the Revenue Department (Annexure 1 to the writ application), 17 posts of Junior Forest Officers were created in the Bihar Forest Service. On the 7th August, 1964, the petitioners were promoted to the Bihar Junior Forest Service by a notification (Annexure 2 to the writ application). On the 26th April, 1973, the petitioners were further promoted to the posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests by the notification, as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application. The Indian Forests Service was constituted under the provisions of the All India Service Act, 1951, and the petitioners, by virtue of being members of the Bihar Forest Service, were eligible for being promoted to the Indian Forest Service, but under erroneous interpretation of the law, they were held to be ineligible. They unsuccessfully represented in the matter. Ignoring the claim of the petitioners, the Responds 5 and 6 were promoted, which necessitated the filing of the present writ application. 3. The All India Service Act, was enacted in 1951 for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the All India Service common to the Union and States. In 1963, provision was made by the amendment of the Act, for constitution of the Indian Forest Service. Section 3 of the Act, provided for rules to be made by the Central Government after consultation with the State Government for regulation of recruitment and conditions of service. Accordingly the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, were framed and came into force with effect from 1.7.1966. They will be referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules'. The term 'service in the rules means the Indian Forest Service, as indicated in section 2(d). The 'State Forest Service' has been defined in section 2(g) which provision has been the subject matter of great controversy in the present case. The relevant portion of the definition is quoted below: "2. They will be referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules'. The term 'service in the rules means the Indian Forest Service, as indicated in section 2(d). The 'State Forest Service' has been defined in section 2(g) which provision has been the subject matter of great controversy in the present case. The relevant portion of the definition is quoted below: "2. Definitions-In the rules, unless the context otherwise requires, (g) "State Forest Service means :- (i) any such service in a State being a service connected with forestry and the members thereof having gazetted status, as the Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government, approve for the purposes of these rules; or (ii) any service in such Central Civil Post, Class I or Class II, connected with forestry, as may be approved by the Central Government for the purposes of these rules." The Rule 3 dealing with the constitution of the Service said that the Service should consist of- (a) Members of the State Forest Service recruited to the Service at its initial constitution in accordance with provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, and (b) persons recruited to the Service in accordance with the provisions of sub-rules (2) to (4) of Rule 4 Regulations were made under rule 4 (1) for the initial recruitment to the Service, but that has nothing to do with the present case, Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 provided for promotion of substantive members of the State Forest Service to the Indian Forest Service. The appointment to the Service by direct recruitment is dealt with in Rule 7 and regulations were made thereunder in 1967. We are not concerned with those regulations also in this case. What is relevant in the present case are the regulations framed under Rule 8 for the purpose of recruitment by promotion from amongst the substantive members of the State Forest Service. These regulations were also framed in 1966 and came into force with effect from 1.7.1966 and are called the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. The interpretations of some of the provisions of these regulations have been attempted by the parties differently and they will be referred as 'the Regulations' for brevity. The original regulation 4 of the Regulations dealing with the promotion was repealed in 1972 and was replaced by a new regulation. The interpretations of some of the provisions of these regulations have been attempted by the parties differently and they will be referred as 'the Regulations' for brevity. The original regulation 4 of the Regulations dealing with the promotion was repealed in 1972 and was replaced by a new regulation. The relevant portion of the regulation, which held the field at the time when the petitioners, according to their case, should have been considered for promotion to the Indian Forest Service was in the following terms :- "5. Conditions of eligibility for promotion- (i) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet at intervals not exceeding one year and prepare a list of such members of the State Forest Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the Service. The number of members of the State Forest Service included in the list shall not be more than twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of the period of twelve months, commencing from the date of preparation of the list, in the posts available for them under rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, or 10 per cent of the Senior posts shown against items 1 and 2 of the cadre schedule of each State or group of States, whichever is greater. (2) The Committee shall consider, for inclusion in the said list, the cases of members of State Forest Service in order of seniority in the State Forest Service upto a number not less than five times the number referred to in sub-regulation (1); provided that: (i) in computing the number for inclusion in the field of consideration, the number of officers referred to in sub-regulation (3) shall be excluded: (ii) the Committee shall not consider the case of member of the State Forest Service unless, on the first day of the January of the year in which it meets, he is substantive in the State Forest Service and has completed not less than eight years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in a post of Assistant Conservator of Forests or any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government in posts included in the State Forest Service." While preparing the list of the members of the State Forest Service suitable for promotion, the committee did not consider the petitioners as eligible. Representations were made by officers similarly situated as the petitioners, but their grievance was not redressed. By Annexure 10, the Respondents 5 and 6 were promoted on probation to the Indian Forest Service. This writ application was thereafter filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India, Respondent no.1, State of Bihar, Respondent no. 2, Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission Respondent no. 3, and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Bihar, Respondent no. 4 for considering the petitioners as well as other officers of the Bihar Forest Service for promotion to the Indian Forest Service and for quashing the order as contained in Annexure 10. 4. The question to be decided is whether the petitioners can be considered for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. In this regard, the following points arise: (a) whether the petitioners were members of the Bihar Forest Service: (b) If the answer to the first point be in the affirmative, whether the petitioners were in the Service substantively; (c) whether the petitioners had completed on the relevant date 8 years of continuous service (officiating or substantive) in a post of Assistant Conservator of Forest or any other equivalent post so declared by the State. 5. In regard to the third point, a few more facts have to be stated. The Calcutta High Court in writ case had the occasion to consider the above mentioned Regulation 5. It held by a judgment dated 25th July, 1974, that the latter part of sub-regulation (2) provision (ii) requiring 8 years of continuous service, as Assistant Conservator was ultra vires. Following that decision, the words: "in a post of Assistant Conservator of Forests or any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government." were substituted on 6.7.1976 by the words: "in posts included in the State Forest Service." The Calcutta High Court held that offending portion of the sub-regulation was in conflict with Regulation 4(2) of the I.F.S. (Recruitment) Rules, which permitted the members of the State Forest Service to be promoted to the Indian Forest Service. The petitioners in the present writ application have contended that for the same reason, this Court also must hold that the condition requiring a member of the State Forest Service to complete 8 years of continuous service in a post of Assistant Conservator or in equivalent post is void. It has further been argued that the petitioners have been holding substantive posts in the Bihar State Forest Service since 7.8.1964, that is, for more than 8 years on the relevant date and were entitled to be considered for promotion. On behalf of the respondents, it has been asserted that the petitioners were not in the State Forest Service earlier than 24.4.1973 when they were appointed as Assistant Conservators by Annexure 4. It has also been said that the appointment of the petitioners under Annexure 2 or Annexure 4 was not on substantive basis and this is a second infirmity in their claim. The respondents further relied on the condition of 8 years as continuous service as Assistant Conservator as a valid condition before the amendment in July, 1976. The decision given by the Calcutta High Court is not accepted as correct. 6. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, appearing for the Respondents 5 and 6, made an additional argument that these respondents were appointed in the Indian Forest Service in August, 1975, that is, before the amendment of Regulation 5 (2) (ii) requiring 8 years, continuous service as Assistant Conservator and their appointment should not be affected by a subsequent amendment, even if it be held to be retrospective in operation. Reliance was placed on the decision in Srimati Kusum Kumari Devi Vs. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bihar. Mr. Chatterjee appears to be right. At the point of time, Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed, the unamended regulation was in force and the petitioners did not fulfil the condition of being in service as Assistant Conservator for the requisite period. The appointments, therefore, could not be challenged at that time on the ground that the petitioners were wrongly ignored from consideration. if the appointments were made validly and in accordance with law then in force, can it be said that the same are vitiated by a subsequent amendment of the rule which enabled the petitioners also to be considered. Things lawfully done under existing law cannot be later undone on the ground that the law was changed. if the appointments were made validly and in accordance with law then in force, can it be said that the same are vitiated by a subsequent amendment of the rule which enabled the petitioners also to be considered. Things lawfully done under existing law cannot be later undone on the ground that the law was changed. The amendment in a statute does not nullify the executive actions validly taken earlier. The past transactions have to be respected. It was argued by Mr. Basudeva Prasad appearing for the petitioners, that this Court also should hold the condition requiring a candidate to be in service for 8 continuous years as Assistant Conservator as invalid and ultra vires on the ground mentioned in the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. I have considered the decision of the Calcutta High Court closely but with great respect I have to say that I am not in agreement with the same. While declaring a particular class of persons eligible for appointment to a particular post, it is permissible to place further conditions which a candidate must fulfil. Assuming in favour of the petitioners that they should be held to be members of the Bihar Forest Service since 1964, they cannot be permitted to challenge the additional requirement of 8 years of service as Assistant Conservator. They were therefore, not eligible for being considered on this ground alone when Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed, and the writ application must be dismissed against those respondents. 7. On the question whether the petitioners are eligible for promotion to Indian Forest Service, the main argument addressed on behalf of Respondents 5 and 6 is that the petitioners' appointment under Annexure 2 was not substantive. The other requirement in proviso (ii) to Regulation 5 (2) is that the candidate should be substantively in the State Forest Service on the 1st January of the year in question. Elaborate arguments were addressed by all the parties in regard to the interpretation of Annexure 2, the order dated 7-8-1964, appointing the petitioners in the Bihar Junior Forest Service. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below: "The following Forests Rangers are promoted temporarily to the Junior Bihar Forest Service in the scale of Rs. 200-10-250-15-325-EB-15-400-10-450 against the temporary post sanctioned in G. O. No. C/FC (A O 13/61/95 R. dated the 20th January, 1961 X X X X 10. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below: "The following Forests Rangers are promoted temporarily to the Junior Bihar Forest Service in the scale of Rs. 200-10-250-15-325-EB-15-400-10-450 against the temporary post sanctioned in G. O. No. C/FC (A O 13/61/95 R. dated the 20th January, 1961 X X X X 10. Shri Ram Ashish Singh II. 11. Shri R. P. Sinha. X X X X (Some words have been under lined by me.) It has been contended on behalf of all the respondents that the language of the order make it absolutely clear that the petitioners were not being appointed substantively. It is not their case that they have been subsequently appointed by any other order. Mr. Basudeva Prasad, appearing for the petitioners, argued that all the appointments to a Government post can be divided in three categories namely, substantive, officiating and on probation. If a particular appointment can be shown to be neither officiating nor on probation, the same must be held to be substantive. He relied upon certain observations made in paragraph 11 of the judgment in the important case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India. There, the Supreme Court was considering the scope and application of Article 311 of the Constitution and was not concerned in exhaustively classifying the nature of appointments. The observations made in a decision in a particular context and against a particular background, cannot be applied universally. The entire discussion in the judgment and specially in paragraph 11 makes it abundantly clear that what the Supreme Court was concerned in that case was to clarify the right of a Government Servant against the termination of his service. I do not agree with the learned Counsel that the observations in that case support his contention that the petitioner's appointment was substantive for the reason that it could neither be characterised as officiating or on probation. Mr. Basudeva Prasad urged that a substantive appointment is possible in a temporary post and that a substantive appointment cannot and may not be equated with the permanent appointment. He referred to certain rules of the Bihar Service Code which contemplate such a position. He also relied on the decisions in Bimala Charan Batabyal Vs. Trustees for the Indian Museum Dhurva Malviya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Khutubuddin. He referred to certain rules of the Bihar Service Code which contemplate such a position. He also relied on the decisions in Bimala Charan Batabyal Vs. Trustees for the Indian Museum Dhurva Malviya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Khutubuddin. That may be so but the language used in Annexure 2' in the present case clearly indicates that the petitioners were being promoted temporarily. The word 'substantive' has not been defined in any of the relevant rules and must be interpreted in the context in which it is used. While framing the regulation, it was clearly intended that only such officers should be considered for inclusion in the Indian Forest Service who are in the State Forest Service on a firm basis. An officer whose existence in the State Service was precarious could not have been intended to be included in that class. Mr. Prasad referred to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary for finding out the meaning of the word. Different meanings of the word have been given in accordance with the context it is used, and the one which may be relevant in the present case, namely, "having an independent existence or status, not dependent upon, subsidiary to or referable to something else" does not help the petitioners. Both Mr. Rambalak Mahto, appearing for the State of Bihar and Mr. S. Mukherjee, appearing for Respondents 5 and 6, who followed Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, strongly relied upon the decision in The Director, Panchayat Raj, U.P. Vs. Babu Singh Gaur. It has been contended that the word 'substantive' may be used for different purposes and in the case before the Supreme Court, the only purpose for which the term was applied was "for counting leave for increment purposes and for no other purpose" (See paragraph 12 of the judgment). The Government Servant was not allowed to avail of any other benefit from that term. Mr. Mukherjee placed original Rule 82 (d) of the Bihar and Orissa Service Code containing rules made by the Government of Bihar and Orissa under the Civil Service (Governors Provinces) Delegation Rules, 1926, which reads as follows: "82. The Government Servant was not allowed to avail of any other benefit from that term. Mr. Mukherjee placed original Rule 82 (d) of the Bihar and Orissa Service Code containing rules made by the Government of Bihar and Orissa under the Civil Service (Governors Provinces) Delegation Rules, 1926, which reads as follows: "82. The following provisions prescribe the conditions on which service counts for increments in a time-scale: X X X X (d) The following periods count for increments in the time-scale of a temporary post to which a Government servant has been substantively appointed if he returns to the same temporary post :- (i) Officiating service in another post: (ii) Service in another temporary post; (iii) Foreign service; and (iv) Leave other than extraordinary leave". These rules were replaced by the Bihar Service Code, 1952 and corresponding provision was included in Rule 85 (d). The preface to the new Code has been annexed as Annexure 'E' to the supplementary counter affidavit of Respondents 5 and 6 which explains the position. Clause (d) of Rule 85 was, later, on 9-10-63 dropped. But, however, it has to be noted that so long the provision for substantive nature was for the limited purpose of counting for increments in a time scale. Mr. Mukherjee strongly urged that like the case before the Supreme Court in The Director, Panchayat Raj U.P. Vs. Babu Singh Gaur the petitioners cannot rely upon the substantive nature of their appointment-assuming for a moment that their appointment could be characterised as substantive for any other purpose. There appears to be considerable force in the argument. The result is that even if the argument of Mr. Basudeva Prasad, dependant on the interpretation of the observation of the Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of the Judgment in Purshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India be accepted as correct, the appointment would not be assumed to be substantive for the purpose of promotion to the Indian Forest Service. Mr. Mukherjee, in order to corroborate his argument, also relied upon the Government decision taken on the Ist May, 1953, as contained in annexure D that no substantive appointment would be made in future in temporary posts. He also submitted that Annexure 9' to the writ application, on which great reliance has been placed by the petitioners, also does not support them. He also submitted that Annexure 9' to the writ application, on which great reliance has been placed by the petitioners, also does not support them. Annexure 9 is an order of the State Government dated 9-9-1946 laying down three conditions on which a substantive appointment could be made in a temporary post. The language clearly indicates that all the conditions must be present. The second condition was a great likelihood of the post continuing and the third condition was in the following terms: "where there are definite reasons to believe that the post is of semi-permanent or quasi permanent nature and that the post might ultimately be made permanent." No indication appears that at the time of the appointment of the petitioners, these condition were satisfied. The fact that the post actually continued later could not prove that its likelihood was appreciated at that time. The third condition mentions definite reasons to believe "that the post of semi-permanent or quasi-permanent nature might ultimately be made permanent". On the contrary, Annexure 2 expressly mentions that the posts were temporary. This is also an indication that the appointment of the petitioners was not substantive. The view which I am taking is consistent with the decision in Sudhir Kumar Roy Vs. Union of India holding that temporary appointments were not to be treated as substantive in the service of the Forest Department. The petitioners must be, therefore, held to be ineligible to be considered for recruitment to the Indian Forest Service. 8. A serious controversy was raised by the respondents that the Bihar Junior Forest service was not a part of the State Forest Service and for that reason also the petitioners were not eligible. In view of my findings recorded above, the writ application must fail and I do not consider it essential to deal with this point. I am, accordingly, not referring to the elaborate arguments addressed at the Bar and the numerous decisions cited. 9. In the result, the writ application is dismissed, but I will direct the parties to bear their own costs. I agree. Application dismissed.