JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS petition comes before us on a reference being made by a Division Bench, as in its opinion, there is a conflict in the views taken by two Division Benches of this Court. ( 2. ) THE short facts leading to the present reference are these. The petitioner is an allocated Government servant. He was initially employed in quondam State of Madhya Bharat on the post of Cane Supervisor from 16-1-1950. On the formation of the new State of Madhya Pradesh, under the states Reorganisation Act, 1956, he was integrated on the post of Agriculture assistant (Lower Division ). Thereafter, vide order dated 3-5-1963 (Annexure r. 1), he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture which is a Class 11 (Gazetted) Post until further orders and this promotion was subject to the concurrence of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service commission. Having been promoted on this post, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, in the same grade and scale of pay. ( 3. ) THE State Government had constituted a Departmental Promotion committee, under the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966, as published vide Notification No. 7265 of 6137-X1v-I dated 18-10-1966, in the M. P. Gazette, Part IV (Extra Ordinary) dated 22-3-1968 there-in-after referred to as the agricultural Services Rules ). During the working of the petitioner on the promoted post certain adverse remarks were recorded in his confidential. The matter of petitioners suitability for the promoted post was first scrutinized by the Departmental Promotion Committee, constituted under the Agricultural Services Rules which found the petitioner to be un-suitable for promotion. The matter was then sent to the Public Service Commission for its opinion along with the opinion of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Public Service Commission concurred with the opinion of the Departmental Promotion Committee and opined that the petitioner was unsuitable. Accepting this opinion, the State government vide order dated 24-9-1971 (Annexure P. 3) reverted the petitioner to the post of Agriculture Assistant (Upper Division ). The petitioner had filed the present petition challenging this order of reversion. ( 4. ) THE petitioner had placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Accepting this opinion, the State government vide order dated 24-9-1971 (Annexure P. 3) reverted the petitioner to the post of Agriculture Assistant (Upper Division ). The petitioner had filed the present petition challenging this order of reversion. ( 4. ) THE petitioner had placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Motilal Gupta v. State of M. P. and another, (M. P. No. 709 of 197j decided on 1-3-1974.) and the State respondent had relied on another Division Bench decision of this Court in smt. V. K. Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975 M P L J 45.), Shri P. K. Tare, Chief Justice (as he then was) was a party to both these decisions. The referring Division bench found that there was a conflict in the view taken in the aforesaid two division Bench decisions and, therefore, it referred the case for resolving the conflict, to a larger Bench. ( 5. ) THE central point urged on behalf of the petitioner challenging the impugned order of reversion, was that the petitioner was already selected for promotion before the agricultural Services Rules came into force; the only stage remained was the confirmation in consultation with the Public Service commission and, therefore, the scrutiny by the Departmental Promotion committee was unauthorised and the opinion of the Public Service Commission based on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, was vitiated and could not be acted upon by the respondent and, therefore, the reversion order dated 24-9-1971 (Annexure P. 3) was bad in law and deserves to be set aside We may state here that the learned counsel for the petitioner had made it specifically clear that except the aforesaid ground, he had no other contention to advance in support of the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in support of his contention on dr. Motilal Guptas case (supra ). He also submitted that the points involved for decision in Mrs. V. K. Singhs case (supra) was altogether different and the case is distinguishable from Dr. Motilal Guptas case (supra ). ( 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in support of his contention on dr. Motilal Guptas case (supra ). He also submitted that the points involved for decision in Mrs. V. K. Singhs case (supra) was altogether different and the case is distinguishable from Dr. Motilal Guptas case (supra ). ( 6. ) LEARNED Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the state, submitted that under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (General conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as service Rules) the appointment, even by promotion of the petitioner could be only in consultation with the Public Service Commission under article 320 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, as the promotion of the petitioner in Class II post was till further orders and subject to concurrence of the Public Service Commission, his appointment was not regular till the concurrence of the Public Service Commission was obtained. He submitted, therefore, that the question of suitability for selection could be examined. He further submitted that Rule 13 of the "agricultural Services Rules" provided that the Committee constituted under that rule shall make a preliminary selection for promotion and rule 15 provides that Committee shall prepare the list of persons suitable for promotion. Therefore, the State Government acted in accordance with the Agricultural Services Rules in getting the case of the petitioner examined by the Departmental Promotion Committee under these rules, and sending its recommendation to the Public Service Commission. The State Government did not commit any error of law. In other words, the argument of the learned Advocate General was that scrutiny by the Departmental Promotion Committee was the first stage in the process of selection of the petitioner for promotion. ( 7. ) THE order Annexure P. 1 / R. 1 so far as it is relevant, reads as under: "government of Madhya Pradesh Agriculture Department. No. 2354/2448/xiv-I Bhopal, dated 3rd May 1963. xx xx xx government is pleased to promote the following Agriculture Assistants to the post of the Assistant Directors of Agriculture, temporarily, until further orders, in Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Service, Class II, in the scale of Rs. 275-275-300-15-405-B-20-425-550-B-25-700- from the date they take over charge of the posts :-1. xxx 2. Shri N. B. Lad 3 to 13-xxx xx xx 2. The above promotions are subject to the concurrence of the madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Indore. 275-275-300-15-405-B-20-425-550-B-25-700- from the date they take over charge of the posts :-1. xxx 2. Shri N. B. Lad 3 to 13-xxx xx xx 2. The above promotions are subject to the concurrence of the madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Indore. Necessary posting orders may be issued. xxx xxx xxx" ( 8. ) RULE 7 of the Service Rules so far as material reads as under : "7. Methods of Recruitment-Candidates shall be selected for appointment to a service or post by one or more of the following methods as may be prescribed, namely :- (i) direct recruitment; (ii) promotion; (iii) transfer of person or persons already employed in another service or post; provided that the Commission shall be consulted before a person is appointed to a service or post if such consultation is necessary under article 320 of the Constitution read with the Madhya Pradesh Public service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1957. " It is not the case of the petitioner that, for his appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture, which is a class II gazetted post, under the M. P. Public Service Commission (Limitation of functions) Regulations, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as the P. S. C. Regulations) consultation with the Public Service Commission for suitability for promotion was not necessary. ( 9. ) IT may be stated that the proviso to Article 320 (3) of the Constitution of India, enables the President and the Governor to make regulations to take out particular class from the obligation of consulting the Public Service commission, under Article 320 (3) of the Constitution; but once the Government makes the Regulations under the proviso, it cannot make ad hoc promotion out of these Regulations. In other words though Article 320 (3) of the constitution is directory and the proviso empowers the Government to make regulations excluding such consultations, it does not amount that the government has no constitutional obligation to consult the Public Service commission or that it is the pleasure of the Government in any particular case to consult or not to consult the Public Service Commission. Once regulations have been made under the proviso to Article 320 (3) of the constitution they are meant to be followed in letter and spirit. Once regulations have been made under the proviso to Article 320 (3) of the constitution they are meant to be followed in letter and spirit. It is true that the requirement of the consultation with the Commission does not extend to making advice of the Commission on these matters binding on the government. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the promotion of the petitioner vide Annexure P1/r1 was only ad hoc and it was not by way of a regular selection. The State Government has in its return paragraph 3 clearly stated that the temporary appointments made in the year 1963 of the persons including the petitioner on the Class II posts were by way of an interim arrangement. There is no rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner in counter to this averment of the State Government. ( 10. ) IT is true that in absence of statutory Rules regulating promotion to higher posts, the Government is competent to issue executive instructions as long as those instructions are not inconsistent with any rule already framed or to any constitutional provision and regulate the selection of officers for promotion; but in the instant case it it not even averred in the petition that under any such executive instructions the case of the petitioner tor promotion was scrutinized as to his suitability and on such regular selection he was promoted; to iterate the order of promotion of the petitioner was merely ad hoc / an interim arrangement. In this view of the matter when during this arrangement the Agricultural Service Rules came into force, the procedure prescribed in those Rules for appointment by promotion has to be followed. It is true that these Rules did not have a retrospective effect. In other words regular selection made prior to the coming into force of those rules were not affected. We have already held that in the instant case the promotion of the petitioner was only ad hoc; regular selection was yet to be made; ad hoc promotion did not amount to selection; Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted under the Agriculture Service Rules and its rules 14, 15 and 16 provide as under : "14. We have already held that in the instant case the promotion of the petitioner was only ad hoc; regular selection was yet to be made; ad hoc promotion did not amount to selection; Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted under the Agriculture Service Rules and its rules 14, 15 and 16 provide as under : "14. Conditions of eligibility for promotion/transfer-The Committee shall consider the cases of all persons who on the 1st day of January of that year, had completed such years of service, whether officiating or substantive, in the post / service as mentioned in column 3 of Schedule IV or any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the Government as may be prescribed by Government from time to time. 15. Preparation of list of suitable officers- (1) The Committee shall prepare a list of such persons as satisfy the conditions prescribed in rule 14 above and as are held by the Committee to be suitable for promo-tion / transfer to the service. This list shall be sufficient to cover probable vacancies for two years. (2) The selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitably in all respects, with due regard to seniority, in their substantive grade. (3) The names of the officers included in the list shall be arranged in order of seniority in the lower service; provided that any junior officer who, in the opinion of the committee, is of an exceptional merit and suitability, may be assigned in the list a higher place than that of officers senior to him. (4) The list so prepared shall be reviewed and revised every year. (5) If in the process of selection, review or revision, it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Subordinates Civil Service, the committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession. 16. (4) The list so prepared shall be reviewed and revised every year. (5) If in the process of selection, review or revision, it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Subordinates Civil Service, the committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession. 16. Consultation with the Commission.-The list prepared in accordance with Rule 15 shall then be forwarded to the Commission by the government along with- (i) The Records of all persons included in the list, (ii) The record of all members of the (as in column 2, Schedule IV)Service who are proposed to be superseded by the recommendations made in the list; (iii) The reasons as recorded by the Committee for the proposed supersession of any member of the (as in column 2 of Schedule IV)Service; and (iv) The observations of the Government; on the recommendations of the Committee. " Following the aforesaid statutory Rules it was imperative for the State government to have got the suitability of the petitioner examined by the departmental Promotion Committee. Thus, there was nothing illegal in the departmental Promotion Committee considering the suitability of the petitioner for promotion to Class II post. Any period of working on the promoted post on account of the ad hoc promotion or a promotion under a temporary arrangement does not create a right to that rank. It may also be mentioned that there were adverse remarks Annexures R. 2 to R. 5 in the confidential reports of the petitioner which were duly communicated to him. The Departmental Promotion Committee constituted under the Agriculture service Rules had considered the case with regard to the suitability of the petitioner for promotion to Class II post in the years 1968 and 1971, and on both the occasions, he was found to be unsuitable and the Public Service commission to whom this opinion of the Departmental Promotion Committee was sent for concurrence agreed with the opinion of the Departmental promotion Committee as indicated vide Annexures R. 6 to R. 9. ( 11. ) IT is true that the decision in Motilal Guptas case (supra) has been tacitly endorsed by the Supreme Court inasmuch as a Special Leave Petition that was filed against the decision of this Court in that case has been rejected by the Supreme Court on the 10th of March, 1975 vide Special Leave Petition no. ( 11. ) IT is true that the decision in Motilal Guptas case (supra) has been tacitly endorsed by the Supreme Court inasmuch as a Special Leave Petition that was filed against the decision of this Court in that case has been rejected by the Supreme Court on the 10th of March, 1975 vide Special Leave Petition no. 2235 of 1974 (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2235 of 1974 ). ( 12. ) AS already stated the sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention was the decision in dr. Motilal Guptas case (Supra); but the decision in that case cannot be pressed into service to advance the case of the petitioner. The decision in that case had proceeded on the premises that the procedure of selection of the petitioner was over; the question was only about the confirmation of his appointment and it was in that context, held that Promotion Committee had no jurisdiction in the matter of confirmation of appointment. This would be apparent from the following excerpts of the judgment in Dr. Motilal guptas case: "therefore, the petitioners case was not that of selection for officiation in a higher post, but was a case which the appointing authority was required to consider for confirmation in the higher post to which the petitioner had already been promoted temporarily before the rules had come into force. This task of confirmation in the higher post to which the petitioner had been temporarily promoted could evidently not be entrusted to the Departmental Promotion Committee, whose jurisdiction is only to make a list for selection of candidates for promotion in an officiating higher post. A case of confirmation in an officiating higher post is to be considered by the appointing authority or by any person who may be delegated the power in that behalf in consultation with the Public service Commission and the Departmental Promotion Committee would not come in the picture in that process. Looked at from this point of view, the order impugned, namely, the one, dated 2-8-1971 (petitioners annexure-3) is clearly vitiated and illegal as the same is based on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which had no jurisdiction to consider a case of confirmation in a higher officiating post. Looked at from this point of view, the order impugned, namely, the one, dated 2-8-1971 (petitioners annexure-3) is clearly vitiated and illegal as the same is based on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which had no jurisdiction to consider a case of confirmation in a higher officiating post. " xxx xxx xxx "but the opinion of the Public Service Commission was necessarily based on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which had no jurisdiction to consider the case of confirmation of a member of the Public Health Services in a higher officiating post. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the fact that the Public Service Commission might have been consulted, will not improve the respondents case any further. Even that opinion would be vitiated on account of the unwarranted and unauthorised recommendation of the Departmental promotion Committee. " xxx xxx xxx "thus, clearly, the petitioners case was that of confirmation and not for being selected for officiating in a higher post temporarily. " xxx xxx xxx ( 13. ) THE facts of the instant case are more akin to the facts of Smt. V. K. Singhs case (Supra ). It was a case where an ad hoc promotion was made and thereafter the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted under the executive instructions of the Government had examined the case of the petitioner as to her suitability for the promoted post and having found her unsuitable, the State Government reverted her to her substantive post. ( 14. ) THE decisions in Smt. V. K. Singhs Case (supra) and Dr. Motilal guptas case (Supra) are based on altogether different premises and as such there is no question of any conflict between these two decisions. ( 15. ) THE view taken in Smt. V. K. Singhs case (Supra) is in conformity with the view taken by us as discussed in paragraph 10 of this order. ( 16. ) IN the light of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the petition. ( 17. ) IN the result the petition is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.