( 1 ) THESE nine appeals are by the several respondents in W. P. 15416 to 15421 of 1980 and W. P. 16800 of 1980 and are directed against the Interlocutory order dated 4. 9. 80 made by Rama jois, J. , on I. As. II, IV,vi, VIII x and XII. By that order the learned single Judge directed the State government not to make promotions from Class II to Junior Class I Posts and to the Class-I Senior Posts in the department of Horticulture till the final seniority list of the officers is prepared. W. A. 1693 to 1698 and W. A. 2112 of 1980 are by the State of Karnataka and the Director of Horticulture who are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in WP 15416 to 15421 and in WP 16800 of 1980. Appellants in WA 1567 of 1980 are respondents 3 and 4 in WP 15416 of 1980. Appellant in WA 1688 of 1980 was an additional respondent, impleaded as such, at his own instance in W. Ps. 15416 to 15421 of 1980. ( 2 ) THE matter relates to the vexed and long-pending disputes as to interseniority of officers in the Horticulture department. These problems were accentuated on account of transfer of officials from the Agriculture department to this Department pursuant to the transferance of a number of projects and their execution from the agriculture Department to the Horticulture Department. On 13. 2. 63 about 20 schemes undertaken by the Agriculture Department stood transferred to the Horticulture department. 16 more schemes of the Agriculture Department were again transferred to the Horticulture Department some time belt- ween 31,3. 64 and 2. 8. 65. On 14. 10. 63, by a Government order the State Government constituted a Committee to determine the seniority of all the officials of the horticulture Department including those who were transferred from the agriculture Department along with the schemes. Pursuant to the recommendations of this Committee on the question of inter-se Seniority as well as on the need for re-organisation of the Department, a Government Order dated 3. 11. 65 came to be made reorganising the services in the Horticultural Department into Class I senior class I junior Class II and horticultural Assistants Grade-I, II and iii respectively. Final Seniority Lists were published on 30. 12. 75 setting out seniority of officials as on 1. 1. 65. 11. 65 came to be made reorganising the services in the Horticultural Department into Class I senior class I junior Class II and horticultural Assistants Grade-I, II and iii respectively. Final Seniority Lists were published on 30. 12. 75 setting out seniority of officials as on 1. 1. 65. ( 3 ) SOME of the aggrieved officials challenged the said final seniority. List in WP 555, 558, 595, 641 to 650, 678 to 683, 780, 848, 1424 to 1428 and 1617 of 1976 and on 11. 8. 78 a learned single Judge quashed the list. Thereafter, a provisional list was published on 23. 8. 79 calling for representations from persons who felt aggrieved by the rankings assigned to them therein. Representations have accordingly been made; but the final list, after considering those representations is yet to be published. Petitioners before the learned single judge were those who were aggrieved by and made representations against the rankings assigned to them in the provisional list. Their grievance in the writ petitions was that the state Government which while delaying the consideration of their representations and the publication of the final list is however, hastening to make promotions on the basis of the impugned provisional list. ( 4 ) THE learned single Judge was of the view that fixation of Inter-se seniority constitutes the very basis of ensurement of equality in the matter of promotions and that in the circumstances of the case there was hardly any justification for the delay in preparing and publishing the final lists; and that should promotions be allowed to be made on the basis of the provisional list there was a likelihood of serious injustice being done to the petitioners. In this view of the matter the learned single Judge, in modification of the earlier order dated 14. 8. 80 directed that promotions from Class II to Claps I Junior and to Class I Senior be made only after taking a final decision on the representations and after publishing the final seniority list. In this view of the matter the learned single Judge, in modification of the earlier order dated 14. 8. 80 directed that promotions from Class II to Claps I Junior and to Class I Senior be made only after taking a final decision on the representations and after publishing the final seniority list. ( 5 ) SRI S. G. Doddakalegowda, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, submitted that the order under appeal is somewhat extraordinary, in that, this Court at the interlocutory stage normally declines stay of promotions necessary in the interests of the day to day administration and that there is no justification in placing a total embargo on promotions as the promotions would always be amenable to review in the light of the final decision in the writ petition. Writ-Petitioners, however, contend that the order of the learned single judge, somewhat extraordinary though it may seem, is wholly justified in the circumstances of the case as the State Government had failed to discharge its statutory duties in the matter of preparation and publication of the final list. They contend that, as else, serious injustice would be done to them should promotions be lade on the basis of the disputed provisional list because in the event of their representations being ultimately accepted and higher rankings assigned to them in the final list, they would be denied the financial benefits upon such retrospective promotions in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Servants regulation of pay, Promotion and pension Act, 1974. ( 6 ) THE question that arises is which list - whether the quashed final list dated 30. 12. 75 or the subsequent provisional list dated 23. 8. 79 - should be considered to be the current list to adjust the claims of the various contestants for consideration oi their case for promotion and for purposes of carrying on the day to day administration. In Rama Swamy v. I. G. of Police, air 1966 SC 175 . the Supreme Court examined an analogous position. The argument before the Supreme Court was noticed thus:"10. In Rama Swamy v. I. G. of Police, air 1966 SC 175 . the Supreme Court examined an analogous position. The argument before the Supreme Court was noticed thus:"10. The next point that has been urged is that in any case till final integration of service was made, the state Government was not entitled to take into account the provisional list of sub-inspectors and could only proceed to give promotions and to make transfers region-wise according to the eligibility lists of formet states from which the territories came to the new State. . . "the Supreme Court observed:". . . We are of the opinion that there is no force in this contention. We can see nothing in law which prevents the State Government, from proceeding according to the provisional list after such list was prepared. We are of opinion that the view taken by the Mysore High Court in the earlier writ petitions after the framing of the provisional seniority list is correct and the state Government would be entitled to act on that list subject of course to this that if the provisional list is in any way altered when the final list is prepared, the State government would give effect to the final list. . . . " (Underlining italics supplied) in Kyategowda v. State of Mysore 1970 (2) Mys. L. J. 407. this Court considered the question, though, however, in the context of inter-state Seniority from two aspects. The first aspect was:"6. . . the only question that need be considered and decided is what is the list which should be regarded as the list current for purpose of carrying on the day to day administration. "answering the question it was observed: the answer to the question is also not difficult, because the principles relating to disputes of this nature have been subject to judicial consideration. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to these principles so long as there is a provisional inter-state seniority list prepared by the State Government either for the purpose of its own administration or by way of assistance to the central Government for preparing the final inter state seniority list, the said list would constitute the current list until it is replaced by the final inter state seniority list. . . . . . . The second aspect was referred to thus:"the next question is what should be the list if the final inter state seniority list is for any reason quashed. . . "on this aspect the Court said:"8. , the proper view to take is that when the final inter state seniority list is published it replaces the provisional inter sta,te seniority list and should thereafter represent the correct position regarding seniority and consideration of promotional opportunities. If the final inter state seniority list is questioned and the High Court quashes it either fully or in part, the said list should be regarded as -available to the state Government as the basis for carrying on its day to day administration. . . "but a position that obtains in the present case where, after the quashing of the final list a fresh provisional list has come to be published and the sequential position as to which of the two lists - whether the quashed final list or the subsequent provisional list - should be the current list did not arise for consideration in that case. But Sri Doddakalegowda would say that the pronouncement on the first aspect in Kyategowda's case (2) would apply and be apposite. Relying on the above pronouncements, Sri Doddakalegowda contended that the effect of the order under appeal has virtually the effect of wholly denying to the State Government any list to work upon as a current list and it would be clipping the wings of administration if promotions are so forbidden. 7. It is to be noticed that the purported final list published on 30. 12. 75 was quashed in W. P. 555/76 and connected writ petitions on the view that the provisional lists on which it was based were no provisional lists at all in the eye of law. It was observed:"6. Scrutiny of the provisional lists shows that Annexures A to H are prepared bearing in mind the four principles narrated above. But nowhere it is found anything in regard to the rankings of the officials to show their seniority inter-se. No guideline by way of a note or notes is provided in the list as to how the ranking of 'the officials is to be gathered on different dates, viz. , as on 1. 11. 56. 1. 11. 57, 1. 11. 58 and so on. The Provisional List as on 1. 1. No guideline by way of a note or notes is provided in the list as to how the ranking of 'the officials is to be gathered on different dates, viz. , as on 1. 11. 56. 1. 11. 57, 1. 11. 58 and so on. The Provisional List as on 1. 1. 63 does not contain the names of all the officials who came to be transferred to the Department of horticulture from the Agriculture department in view of the schemes transferred as aforementioned. All these lists provide the history of service of the different officials working in the department of Horticulture, while the history of service of the officials who were transferred from the Agriculture Dept. to the department of Horticulture is not furnished. A reading of the lists, even from various points of view, does not show the ranking of the different officials in regard to their seniority in fact, all that can be gathered from these Provisional lists is, the history of service of different officials working in the department of Horticulture and nothing more. All that is to be found is how those officials have been grouped into different categories in Annexures A to H, which, as already pointed out, are based on the four principles narrated above. . . . . . . In that view of the matter, no Final Seniority List could have been based on the Provisional Lists, even though some of the officials had preferred objections to the entries in the provisional seniority lists. When that is so the provisional Lists and the Final Seniority List cannot stand in the eye of law. They are to be quashed. . . . "thereafter, the present provisional list was published and objections invited. All the representations, it is said are now before Government for consideration. But Government has not considered those representations and published a final list. ( 8 ) WHAT emerges from these antecedents is that while the quashed final- list was held to be no list at all, a fresh final list is not yet published. In these circumstances, the order under appeal, in effect, partially stays the operation of the provisional list as a current working list for purposes of effecting promotions from Class II to class I (Junior) and to Class I (Senior) posts till the final list is published. In these circumstances, the order under appeal, in effect, partially stays the operation of the provisional list as a current working list for purposes of effecting promotions from Class II to class I (Junior) and to Class I (Senior) posts till the final list is published. It was also submitted before us by counsel that in some other writ petitions also this Count has issued mandamus to the State Government to prepare and publish the final list expeditiously. The order of the learned single judge under appeal, no doubt, has the effect of making unavailable to the state Government some list to work upon as a current list for the purpose of day to day administration. Normally the provisional-list in this case should be such current working-list. But then the question of seniority of officials in this department is long pending. The statutory obligation under Rule 10 of Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957, is that gradation list must be published each year. There has been no compliance with this statutory duty and obligation. These extraordinary circumstances of the case have been found by the learned single judge to be such as to justify the interlocutory-order in terms now made interdicting substantial promotions to the categories of posts referred to therein till the final list is prepared. So far as the learned Government advocate's submission that day to day administration gets held up is concerned, it may be observed that though substantial promotions cannot be made on the basis of the provisional list, it would be open to the administration to make independent-charge arranagements during the interregnum till the final list is published. In these circumstances, we think that the discretion exercised by the learned single judge, at the interlocutory stage cannot be said to be arbitrary so as to call for interference in appeal. Appellant State cannot urge against that order a grievance which stems from and is the result of its own inaction in publishing the final list after considering the representations. ( 9 ) IN the result, for the reasons slated above, these appeals fail and are dismissed; but without any order as to costs. --- *** --- .