JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.—The petitioners in this writ petition are the Lower Division Clerks (hereinafter shortly called as the L. D. C.s) in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, and they joined their services as such in the composite State of Punjab on different dates from the year 1961 to 1965, and petitioner No. 2 was confirmed as L. D C. on 17-10-1966 in the State of Punjab. At the time of re-organisation of the State of Punjab, i. e. on 1-11-1966, the petitioners were serving in the territory of the presently constituted Himachal Pradesh and their services were transferred to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners were governed by the Punjab Public Works Subordinate Service Rules, 1934 (to be shortly called the Punjab Rules of 1934), and by virtue of these rules, the petitioners could be promoted to the posts of Sub-divisional Clerks (hereinafter shortly called as S. D. C.s) on the basis of seniority without any pre-condition. It is further alleged that the grade of scale for the post of S. D. C. is the same as that of the L. D. C. except that it carried a special pay of Rs. 20. It is further alleged that the employees of the erstwhile Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh prior to 1966 were governed by the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department Subordinate Class III (Clerical and Stenographers Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, i960 (hereinafter called the Himachal Pradesh Rules of 1960). According to these rules an L. D. C. could only be promoted to the post of S. D. C. if he had passed a departmental examination for clerks as prescribed by the department from time to time. The petitioners allege that they are governed by the Punjab Rules of 1934, and the Himachal Pradesh Rules of 1960 could not be made applicable to them as the same were disadvantageous to the conditions of their services. It is further alleged that the Himachal Pradesh Rules of 1960 could not be made applicable to the petitioners without the prior approval of the Central Government in that behalf. The petitioners also allege that persons junior to them have been promoted as S. D. Cs. It is further alleged that the Himachal Pradesh Rules of 1960 could not be made applicable to the petitioners without the prior approval of the Central Government in that behalf. The petitioners also allege that persons junior to them have been promoted as S. D. Cs. ignoring the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not passed the departmental examination as is required under the Himachal Pradesh Rules of IS60, and that this action of the Himachal Pradesh Government is illegal and unwarranted. It is further alleged that the State of Himachal Pradesh, and the Chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh (respondents 2 and 3) have taken this action on the basis of the notification, dated 4th November, 1968 (copy Annexure D). It is alleged that this notification has been issued without the prior approval of the Central Government as required under the Act and that no blanket approval can be given by the Central Government and each individuals case had to be examined separately. The petitioners further allege that they made several representations but without any effect and that in fact the Government vide its letters, dated 11-6-1970 (Annexure E) and 13-5-1971 (Annexure F) expressed the view that the notification, dated 4th November, 1968, is not valid. The petitioners also alleged that the action of respondents 2 and 3 in promoting respondents 5 to 47 (who were junior to the petitioners) as S. D. Cs. is ultra vires, illegal, without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. On these grounds the petitioners have filed the present writ petition claiming that the order regarding the promotion of respondents 5 to 47 be quashed and that respondents 2 and 3 be directed to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the Punjab Rules of i 934, and-the notification of 4th November, 1968, is illegal and invalid, and that the petitioners be deemed to be governed by the Punjab Rules of 1934. 2. A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to " 3 and the allegations made in the writ petition were denied. It was alleged that the petitioners have no right to file the writ petition claiming a right for future promotion. 2. A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to " 3 and the allegations made in the writ petition were denied. It was alleged that the petitioners have no right to file the writ petition claiming a right for future promotion. It was also alleged that the petitioners are governed by the Himachal Pradesh Rules of IS60 after their allocation to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh/Himachal Pradesh State, and the notification issued on 4tb November, 1968. is legal and valid as the same has been issued by the Central Government itself. It is further alleged that the letters, dated 15th May, 1971 and 11th June, 1970, could not make the operation of the notification as invalid and these letters could not be interpreted as such. It was further alleged that the promotion of respondents 5 to 47 is in accordance with the rules governing the employees. In the light of the above allegations it was prayed that the writ petition should be dismissed. 3. A rejoinder to the return was filed on behalf of the petitioners and the allegations in the writ petition were reasserted and those in the return were denied. 4. I have heard Mrs. Pratima Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri H.K. Paul, Assistant to the Advocate-General for the respondents. 5. Mrs. Malhotra contended that the notification issued on 4-11-1968 is invalid and inoperative and no such blanket approval can be given by the Central Government. She has referred to the letters, dated 11th June, 1970 (copy Annexure E) and 15th May, 1971 (copy Annexure F) issued by Shri H. S. Dube, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to the Chief Secretary, Himachal Pradesh. The letters referred to a notification issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government, and these letters say that fresh notification should be issued after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government and that each case shall have to be examined on its own merits and referred to the Government of India before conditions *of service of the allocated employees could be altered to their disadvantage prospectively and not retrospectively. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this notification of 4th November, 1968 is inoperative as the provisions of Section 82 of the Act have not been complied with. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this notification of 4th November, 1968 is inoperative as the provisions of Section 82 of the Act have not been complied with. In support of her contentions, she has relied upon P.S. Shakir, Consolidation Officer v. The State of Haryana and others [1968 S. L.R. 235], State of Haryana and others v. Shamsher Jang Bahadur and others [1972 S. L.R. 441]. The learned counsel also contended that in accordance with the Punjab Rules of 1934, the petitioners were not required to pass any depart mental examination and merely on the basis of their seniority they could be promoted to the post of S. D. C. It was contended by the learned counsel that the imposing of the condition of passing the departmental examination by the petitioners is not warranted by law and the rule applicable to them, and so the respondents 5 to 47 could not be promoted to the post of S. D. Cs. before considering the cases of the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the notification, dated 4-11-1968 is operative and valid and is in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Act. It was further contended that after the allocation of the petitioners to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh/Himachal Pradesh State, the services of the petitioners are governed by the Himachal Pradesh Rules of 1960, and these rules are applicable to the petitioners. The learned counsel also contended that a blanket approval could be given by the Central Government in the manner in which it has been given and that no writ petition is competent on the ground that a person has a mere chance of promotion to a certain post. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Mohammad Shujat AH and others v. Union of India and others [AIR 1974 S. C. 1631] and Sagli Ram v. Union of India etc. [1975 I. L. R. (Himachal Series) 249]. 7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records and the annexures appended with the writ petition. 8. [1975 I. L. R. (Himachal Series) 249]. 7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records and the annexures appended with the writ petition. 8. The only ground which was vehemently stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the service conditions with respect to the imposition of the examination upon the petitioners could not be enforced because this is a change in the conditions of service to the disadvantage of the petitioners and this change in the rules could not be effected without the previous approval of the Central Government. 9. In P. S. Shakir, Consolidation Officers case (supra) it was held that no change in service conditions to the detriment of an employee can be made without the approval of the Central Government. It was further held that officials provisionally allocated to successor State would continue to remain amenable to the same conditions of service to which they were subject before appointed day. 10. In State of Haryana and others case (supra) where the conditions of service had been changed by administrative instructions by prescribing a test for promotion, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be altered by the Government by means of administrative instructions. In State of Punjab v. S. P. Sharma [(1973) 2 S. C. Cases 466] also the same principle was again followed. 11. In a subsequent ruling in Mohammad Shujat AH and others (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have, however, held that the rules, Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules (1966) which were applicable in that particular case, did not contravene the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and that the right to be considered for promotion was not effected, but the chances of promotion were severely reduced and it was further held that it did not constitute variation in the conditions of service applicable immediately prior to 1st November, 1956 and the proviso to Section 115(7) was not attracted. 12. The notification, dated 4th November, 1968 which is reproduced below and which makes the Himachal Pradesh Rules of 1960 applicable to the petitioners reads as : "NO. 12. The notification, dated 4th November, 1968 which is reproduced below and which makes the Himachal Pradesh Rules of 1960 applicable to the petitioners reads as : "NO. 8/7/67—HMT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi-1, the 4th November, 1968/13th Kartika, 1890, NOTIFICATION GSR...-....In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the following rules regulating the conditions of service of persons allocated under the provisions of Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966) to serve in connection with the affairs of the Union in relation to the territory transferred to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh under Section 5 of the said Act, namely :— 1. Short title and commencement.— (1) These Rules may be called the Himachal Pradesh Allotted Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1966. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of November, 1966. 2. Conditions of service applicable to allotted Government Servants — The rules relating to conditions of service applicable from time to time, to those persons who, immediately before the commencement of these rules, were employees of the Himachal Pradesh Administration, shall apply to every person who, immediately before such commencement was serving in connection with the affairs of the former State of Punjab and who, on or after such commencement, has been allotted under the provisions of sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966)." The learned counsel challenged this notification on the ground that it gives a blanket approval and that it will not be considered to be an approval to the Himachal Pradesh Rules of 1960, by the Central Government as required under Section 82(6) of the Act. 13. The various contentions which have been raised in this writ petition by the learned counsel for the petitioners have, in fact, been considered and decided in Sagli Rams case (supra) by a Division Bench of this Court The points that fell for consideration in the Division Bench ruling in the aforesaid authority were : 1. Can the impugned rules be considered valid as having been made by the president under Article 239(1) of the Constitution or under Article 53 (1) read with Article 73 (1) (a) of the Constitution ? 2. Can the impugned rules be considered valid as having been made by the president under Article 239(1) of the Constitution or under Article 53 (1) read with Article 73 (1) (a) of the Constitution ? 2. If the impugned rules are considered as having been made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, does the President have power to make rules concerning the conditions of service of Government servants serving in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh ? 3. Are the impugned rules invalid because Parliament has already enacted the proviso to Section 82 (6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and therefore there is no power in the President to make rules under the proviso to Article 309 ? 4. Are the impugned rules invalid on the ground that the previous approval of the Central Government, as required by the proviso to Section 82 (6) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, was not taken ? 5. If the impugned rules can be said to have been framed by the Central Government and therefore to have received the implied approval of that Government is not the approval invalid because the proviso to Section 82 (6) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act contemplates only the individual consideration of each case and not a "blanket" approval? The learned Judges constituting the Division Bench have held that the impugned rules are legislative m character and they regulate the service of all the allocated Government employees. It was also held that they lay down a principle operating as a general rule of conduct in relation to such conditions of service. It was further held that the President acting under the proviso to Article 309 can make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed to public services and posts in Union Territories On point No. 3 it was held that the President had the power to make rules under the proviso to Article 309. It was further held that the President acting under the proviso to Article 309 can make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed to public services and posts in Union Territories On point No. 3 it was held that the President had the power to make rules under the proviso to Article 309. On point No. 4, the learned Judges held that when the President makes rules under the proviso to Article 309 the rules must be attributed to the Central Government, and as the rules have been made by*the President therefore the impugned rules do not contravene the proviso to Section 82(6) of the Act and cannot be assailed as invalid on that ground, On point No. 5 it was again held by the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench that the impugned rules cannot be challenged on the ground that a blanket approval has been given. The contentions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case are covered by points numbers 4 and 5 of the aforesaid judgment in Sagli Rants case (supra) and in view of the clear finding given by the Division Bench both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no force. 14. I may also point out that the authority, P. D. Shakir, Consolidation Officer (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the present case because the approval of the Central Government to the Himachal Pradesh Rules of 1960 has in fact been given in the present case, as has been held in Sagli Rams case (supra). Similarly the other case, State of Haryana and others case (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners also becomes inapplicable because the rules which have been enacted and made applicable to the petitioners are statutory rules and are not executive or administrative instructions. There- fore, in these circumstances, there is no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 15. No other point was raised before me. 16. The net result of the above discussion is that the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. -