Short Note : 1. By order dated 19th April 1973, passed by the State Government, respondents 4 to 7 were promoted as Chief Engineer. By another order passed on 1st December 1973, respondent No.8 was also promoted as Chief Engineer. Previous to the promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, these respondents were Superintending Engineers. The petitioner, who was a Superintending Engineer, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging these orders. 2. The Court was informed that the petitioner had also been promoted as Chief Engineer sometime In April 1977. However, as the question of seniority still survives in the cadre of Chief Engineers the petitioner was interested in pressing this petition The High Court, therefore, examined the legality of the orders impugned in this petition by which the aforesaid respondents were promoted as Chief Engineer. 3. Held: The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the committee constituted in 1972 by amending the Schedule to the rules was incompetent to select the respondents as the amendment was made under a mistake. In our opinion, there is no substance whatsoever in this contention. The notification dated 18th September 1972 is Annexure R-IV to the return filed by the respondents. The notification is issued in the form of a rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and is duly authenticated as required by Article 166 It has, therefore, to be held that this was a rule made by the Governor in the exercise of his rule making power under Article 309. The rule so made must be given effect to by the Courts The rule made under Article 309 has the force of law and is on the same footing as an enactment of the legislature. The Courts have no jurisdiction to say that the rule has been made under some mistake and therefore cannot be given effect to learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us Annexure R-III, which is a notification dated 29th July 1972. By this notification, which is also issued under the authority of the Governor, it was decided to constitute a committee consisting of Chief Secretary, Senior-most Secretary, Secretary of the concerned Department and the Deputy Secretary of the concerned Department, for selection of the Heads of the departments. By this notification, which is also issued under the authority of the Governor, it was decided to constitute a committee consisting of Chief Secretary, Senior-most Secretary, Secretary of the concerned Department and the Deputy Secretary of the concerned Department, for selection of the Heads of the departments. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the idea was that this new committee should have jurisdiction for selecting candidates for the posts of Heads of the departments, Madhya pradesh Irrigation Engineering Service Rules were by mistake amended so as to confer jurisdiction on this committee for selection to the post of Chief Engineer when that post is not a post of Head of a department. In our opinion, we cannot enquire into the question as to how the amendment by notification dated 18th September 1972 came to be made by the Governor. Once it is clear to us that it is a rule made under the rule making power of the Governor, our only duty is to give effect to that amendment. If there is a mistake in making that amendment to -the rules, the only way to set the thing right is to make a retrospective rule cancelling the amendment. That not having been done, we have no other option but to give effect to the amendment. In this view of the matter, the selection of the respondents by the committee constituted by the notification dated 18th September 1972 cannot be held to be invalid. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel for tlle petitioner is that the Public Service Commission was not consulted before the respondents were appointed as Chief Engineer. It does appear that there was an omission to consult the Public Service Commission at the time when the respondents were appointed. However, that defect has now been rectified. Annexure R-I, dated 8th December 1970, shows that the Public Service Commission was later consulted and the Commission has given its approval to the appointments of the respondents. Petition dismissed.