NILAMANI DAS v. STATE OF ORISSA — 1982 DIGILAW 43 (ORI)

JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - Petitioners in O.J.C. No. 164/75 belong to the ministerial staff in the Civil Supplies Office under the Collector of Cuttack and the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1380/75 belongs to the ministerial staff in the Civil Supplies Office in the district of Mayurbhanj under the Collector of Mayurbhanj. The Petitioners contend that the ministerial staff appointed in the Civil Supplies Offices of the Collectorates of Cuttack and Mayurbhanj constitute a distinct cadre and they are not governed by the Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Clerks and Assistants in the District Offices and Offices of the Heads of Departments Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as "the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules". They have prayed for quashing the order of the Government dated 19-10-1966 (Annexure-6 in O.J.C. No. 164/15), which is also the same order in the other writ petition, issued by the Revenue Department informing all the Departments of the Government that after coming into force of the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules, the question of service conditions relating to particular officers or any of the cadres, referred to in the Rules, should be referred to the Revenue Department only. They have also prayed to quash the Government instruction dated 16-10-1974 issued by the Revenue Department to be acted upon under the instructions issued under Annexure-6. In O.J.C. No. 32/70 Agani Charan Rout v. State of Orissa 1973 (1) C.W.R. 656, it has been held that all the members of the ministerial service under the administrative control of the District Collector constitute one cadre. As both the writ petitions contain same annexures, reference is made hereunder to the annexures of O.J.C. No. 164/75. 2. Questions that arise for consideration in both the cases are; whether the ministerial servants appointed in the District Civil Supplies Office under the control of the Collector constitute a distinct cadre, separate from the other ministerial staff of the collectorate of that district and whether they are governed by the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules. The claim in both the cases is that the ministerial staff of the District Civil Supplies Office are not included in the cadre of the ministerial staff of the collectorate of the district and, as such, they are not governed by the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules. The claim in both the cases is that the ministerial staff of the District Civil Supplies Office are not included in the cadre of the ministerial staff of the collectorate of the district and, as such, they are not governed by the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules. Under Annexure-6 dated 19-10-1966, the Revenue Department by implementing the provisions of the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules has asked all other Departments not to deal with the matters relating to transfer, promotion, representation, appeal etc. of Class III and Class IV servants of the District and Sub-Divisional Offices merely because in some cases the servants concerned hold posts sanctioned by the Departments other than the Revenue Department. By Annexure-22 dated 16-10-1974, the Government, after disposal of O.J.C. No. 32/70 holding that the ministerial staff in the District Civil Supplies Office under the administrative control of the Collector form part of the staff of the collector ate of the district and are governed by the Orissa Ministerial Rules, sent intimation to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Orissa to implement the instructions contained in Annexure-6. The Petitioners have prayed to quash these annexures. 3. It is contended by the Petitioners that these posts are created, extended, confirmed and abolished by the Civil Supply Department. Reliance has been placed for the same on Annexures-21 and 25. A letter was issued by the Civil Supply Department on 14-11-1961 in which it has been mentioned that the Civil Supplies Office is a separate organisation. Recruitment of L.D. Clerks was made from out of the candidates sponsored by employment exchange and promotions were also made in the Civil Supplies Office exclusively. Disciplinary matters regarding representations, appeals etc. were dealt with by the Civil Supply Department. Gradation lists of Civil Supply Department and that of the Collectors are separately maintained. The gradation lists of the collectorates published in 1963 and 1974 do not contain the names of the members of the civil supply staff. The staff of the collectorates are sometimes required to work in the Civil Supplies Offices and they come by way of deputation. Special allowance is being paid to the O.A.S. officers who are posted to the Civil Supply Department. When the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules were framed by the P. & S. Department, it wanted by a letter dated 22-5-1963 (as would be seen from Annexure-7) the other departments to frame similar rules. Special allowance is being paid to the O.A.S. officers who are posted to the Civil Supply Department. When the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules were framed by the P. & S. Department, it wanted by a letter dated 22-5-1963 (as would be seen from Annexure-7) the other departments to frame similar rules. It is also mentioned therein that the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules apply only to the staff working under the administrative control of the Collectors and the P. & S. Department clarified that the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules are applicable to the ministerial staff of the District Offices and the Offices of the Heads of Departments. The Revenue Department by Annexure-8 asked the other departments to regularise the appointment of the clerks who had been appointed with deficit qualification, in violation of Board's Recruitment Rules. A separate set of rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Civil Supply Department, but the same have not been published. The Civil Supply Department has also directed stay of any transfer from the Civil Supplies Offices to the collectorates. Petitioner No. 14 in O.J.C. No. 164/75 was originally appointed as an L.D. Clerk in the Tahsil Office and was transferred to the Civil Supplies Office, but his transfer was not accepted in the Civil Supplies Office and he was given a fresh appointment letter. He resigned his job in the Civil Supplies Office which was accepted. He made representations subsequently for being taken into the service, but the Collector ordered that he had to obtain concurrence from the Civil Supply Department. The Civil Supply Department advised the Collector to appoint him (vide Annexure-26 to 29). Basing on these factors, it is contended by the Petitioners that they form a separate cadre as a separate unit and are controlled by the Civil Supply Department and are not governed by the Revenue Department, even though the members of the staff are under the administrative control of the Collector. They further contend that the Office of the R.T.O. and the Registration Department are under the administrative control of the Collector. But it has been decided by this Court that they are governed by the Revenue Department. They further contend that the Office of the R.T.O. and the Registration Department are under the administrative control of the Collector. But it has been decided by this Court that they are governed by the Revenue Department. In view of these two decisions of this Court, the decision in Agani Rout easel, the Petitioners contend, is no more a good law and, as such, the Petitioners are not governed by the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules. 4. The Revenue Department has filed counter on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 4. It is contended therein that the civil supplies organisation was set up in the State in the Supply Department at Secretariat level and Civil Supplies Officers in the district and sub-divisional levels during the year 1942, at the time of war emergency, for the purpose of distribution of essential commodities. No statutory rule was governing the field at that time and no uniform procedure in regard to recruitment, promotion etc. of ministerial staff of the district offices has been framed. Although the Civil Supplies Offices were functioning as branches of the district offices, they were functioning on a war footing and all matters relating to recruitment, promotion etc. in the District and Sub-divisional Civil Supplies Offices were made as emergency measure. Accordingly, the District and Sub-Divisional Civil Supplies Offices function as separate units and the District Collectorate was the held of the office as well as the appointing authority in respect of the ministerial staff of those offices. Such state of affairs continued till the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules came into force on 15-4-1963. Under the control of the District Collector, there were several offices in respect of which different Departments of Government were exercising administrative control prior to enforcement of the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules, viz: District Civil Supplies Office, District Mining Office, District Election Office, District Panchayat Office under the administrative control of Supply, Mining & Geology, Home and G.P. Departments of Government respectively. Prior to 15-4-1963, different procedures were being adopted in regard to service matters of employees of these district level offices by the respective Departments of the Government which were exercising administrative control over them. Prior to 15-4-1963, different procedures were being adopted in regard to service matters of employees of these district level offices by the respective Departments of the Government which were exercising administrative control over them. When this arrangement was continuing, Government in the P. & S. Department framed the statutory rules, i.e. the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules, laying down uniform procedure in regard to recruitment, promotion, confirmation and other service conditions of the ministerial staff working in various district level offices under the administrative control of the District Collector. Therefore, the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules apply to recruitment, promotion, confirmation and other service conditions of the ministerial staff working in various district level offices including the district and Sub-Divisional Civil Supplies Offices under the administrative control of the Collector. The District Civil Supplies Office comes under the purview of the District Office within the meaning of Rule 2 read with Rule 20 of the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules. The District Civil Supplies Office like other such district level offices no longer continues to have its separate entity after coming into force of the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules. In appendix 'E' of the Orissa Records Manual, 1964, it is clearly indicated the different sections and Sub-sections into which the office of the District Collector is divided for facility of proper discharge of Government work. Item-2 of this appendix relates to civil applies section. The creation of posts under the Supply Department and budgetary provision for these posts cannot be made in the district level as a separate cadre. Under the Rules of Business of Government, the Revenue Department as the administrative department is to control the establishments of class III and class IV servants of the district and sub-divisional offices and of the Board of Revenue including the offices of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. This position has only been clarified in Annexure-6. Therefore, the collector ate always includes all the offices under it and Civil Supplies Office is also covered by it. To bring uniformity in the matter of different service conditions and recruitment of staff in the collectorate, the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules were brought into force. This position has been affirmed in Again Rout case 1973 (1) C.W.R. 656, (supra). Therefore, the collector ate always includes all the offices under it and Civil Supplies Office is also covered by it. To bring uniformity in the matter of different service conditions and recruitment of staff in the collectorate, the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules were brought into force. This position has been affirmed in Again Rout case 1973 (1) C.W.R. 656, (supra). Merely because there have been no inter se transfers of staff from one office to another in the District Collectorate, it cannot be a ground to hold that the District Civil Supplies Office is distinct from the District Collectorate. For administrative exigency only, Government have not considered inter se transfers of staff among different offices in the collectorate. There is no bar for such transfer. As a matter of fact, the Supply Department in its letter dated 16-6-1967 (Annexure-C) instructed all the Collectors to effect inter se transfer in the collectorates. Whatever may be the position, prior to 15-4-1963 there has been a uniform rule for all such staff and the Petitioners cannot claim that they are not governed by the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules. The gradation list (Annexure 10) on which the Petitioners lay their claim has not been approved by the Collector, Cuttack and, as such, it cannot be claimed to be the finally approved gradation list of the District Civil Supplies Office. After the Government issued instructions as per Annexure-b, instructions were issued under Annexure-22 and in pursuance of these subsequent instructions, a number of persons had been transferred from the District Civil Supplies Office to other branches of the collectorate. The District Collectorate of Mayurbhanj has got a common gradation list of all the Ministerial Staff including the staff of the Civil Supplies Office. In the exigency of public service, when the ministerial staff of the District Civil Supplies Office was not found adequate, to undertake the workload in the distribution of ration cards, the staff working in ether sections of the collector ate were deputed to work in the Civil Supplies Office. The decision in Agani Charan Rout case 1973 (1) C.W.R. 656, applies in full force to the Petitioners. 5. Undoubtedly, the civil supplies organisation was set up in Orissa at the secretariat level, district level and at the sub-divisional level during the last world war. The decision in Agani Charan Rout case 1973 (1) C.W.R. 656, applies in full force to the Petitioners. 5. Undoubtedly, the civil supplies organisation was set up in Orissa at the secretariat level, district level and at the sub-divisional level during the last world war. No statutory rule was governing the field and there was no uniform procedure in regard to recruitment, promotion etc. of the ministerial staff of the civil supplies section in the district offices. The Civil Supplies Offices were functioning as branches of the district offices and the District Collectors were the administrative heads and they were the appointing authorities. That is how appointments were being made through the employment exchange. It is not disputed that the civil supplies organisation is an organisation of the Government for proper distribution of essential articles to the public. This organisation was required at the time of war and emergency when essential commodities were not easily available and the supply was not proper and it was felt necessary to make proper distribution to public. It is not disputed by Government that the civil supplies staff in the collectorate were being treated as a separate unit till the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules came into operation. It appears that after that date there has all along been conflict between the Civil Supply Department and the. Revenue Department relating to the conditions of service of the civil supplies staff. The Revenue Department and the P. & S. Department have been trying to apply the rules to the civil supplies staff in the district offices, but the Civil Supply Department has been resisting the same. In the matter of such conflict, the members of the staff have been in uncertain position. It was the duty of the Government to solve the matter for good. Inter-departmental conflict has resulted in a confusing and chaotic condition in the service conditions of the civil supplies staff. 6. The Petitioners contend that the Civil Supplies Office is a separate and distinct establishment other than the collectorate, the District Collector remains in charge of the civil' supplies administration and is assisted by the Civil Supplies Officer. The Collector remains in such charge by orders of the Civil Supply Department. 6. The Petitioners contend that the Civil Supplies Office is a separate and distinct establishment other than the collectorate, the District Collector remains in charge of the civil' supplies administration and is assisted by the Civil Supplies Officer. The Collector remains in such charge by orders of the Civil Supply Department. They refer to the Civil Supplies Manual published by the Department of Civil Supplies wherein it has been mentioned that the civil supplies administration is to remain in charge of the District Magistrate assisted by the Civil Supplies Officer. The District Magistrates are responsible for executing the policy laid down by the Government in the Supply Department and for maintaining adequate supply of essential commodities within their districts and for securing their equitable distribution at renewable prices. They refer to Annexure-23 which is the organisation chart. They further contend that Annexure-3, the letter dated 14-11-1961 to all Collectors in which the proposal for merger of the civil supplies office in the general cadre of the collectorate was not favoured and was turned down. It was decided that the Civil Supplies Offices are to continue as separate entity and no transfer from the Civil Supplies Office to the collectorate or vice versa is to be made and that appointment and promotion to the posts of Senior Accountants and Head Assistants in the District Civil Supplies Offices are to be made on State basis, i.e. the entire civil supplies personnel of the State are to be considered for such appointment exclusively. The Government in the Civil Supply Department also decided that the rules framed by the Board of Revenue for recruitment to the clerical posts in the collectorates and in the offices of the Sub-Divisional Officers are to be made applicable to the District Civil Supplies Offices under the Board's Miscellaneous Rules of 1923 (Annexure-I). They further contend that by Annexure-7 after the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules came into force, clerks and assistants in the district offices and offices of the heads of departments were categorised and the Revenue Department clarified that by this annexure the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules are meant only for the subordinate staff working in the administrative control of the Revenue Department and none else. It is also submitted that the P. & S. Department in its letter dated 18-5-1972 addressed to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies with a copy to all the Departments including the Supply Department made it clear that the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules are applicable only to the ministerial staff of the District Offices and the Heads of Departments under the Revenue Department and to no other department and the other departments of the Government were requested to frame similar rules. The appointments and promotions in the Civil Supplies Office are made exclusively from amongst the staff of the said office. The other staff of the collectorate are not considered for such promotion. Such appointments are conducted by the Civil Supplies Officer and the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer through employment exchange, but for other appointments in the collectorate those are made only from amongst the persons who come out successful in the competitive examination held under the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules. Therefore, the Petitioners contend that the sources of recruitment are different. By a letter dated 22-10-1973, communication was made by the Revenue Department to all departments of Government for regularisation of the services of the clerks appointed in the district offices under the administrative control of the departments other than Revenue Department with deficit educational qualification and to regularise the same and in that letter the Civil Supplies Office was not mentioned. Relying on Annexure-9 dated 28-12-1973, the Petitioners contend that the Civil Supplies Office at Cuttack communicated the required information in the pro forma indicating that the Civil Supplies Office is a separate entity of the Collectorate though the Collector is the Head of the Office and candidates are appointed as sponsored by the employment exchange. The gradation lists of the Civil Supplies Office and the Collectorate are also separately maintained. The gradation list of the Civil Supplies Office consists of Head Clerks, U.D. Clerks. Junior Accountants and L.D. Clerks of the Civil Supplies Office. In such gradation list, the other ministerial officers of the collectorate are not included. Similarly, in the gradation list of the collectorate the ministerial staff of the Civil Supplies Office are not included. The gradation lists of the collector ate were published in the years 1963, 1974 and 1975. In all such gradation lists, the names of civil supplies staff are not included. Promotions have been made as per those gradation lists. Similarly, in the gradation list of the collectorate the ministerial staff of the Civil Supplies Office are not included. The gradation lists of the collector ate were published in the years 1963, 1974 and 1975. In all such gradation lists, the names of civil supplies staff are not included. Promotions have been made as per those gradation lists. Promotions to the posts of Assistant Civil Supplies Officer are made from the civil supplies staff. So also, retrenchment and reversion of the ministerial staff of the Civil Supplies Office are exclusively confined to the civil supplies staff. Whenever any occasion arises for temporary purposes, the staff of the collector ate are deputed to work in the civil supplies office and they come by way of deputation. Petitioner No. 14 in O.J.C. No. 164/75 was appointed as L.D. Clerk in the Tahsil Office. By order of the Collector he was transferred to the Civil Supplies Office. The Civil Supplies Officer objected to such transfer, and the same was not accepted. He was thereafter appointed afresh in the office of the Civil Supplies Officer. Even in disciplinary matters, the staff of the Civil Supplies Office are subject to the control of the Supply Department and appeals, representations etc. of such ministerial staff are disposed of by the Civil Supply Department. Even when an O.A.S. officer is posted as the Civil Supplies Officer, he is paid deputation allowance. The Civil Supply Department has framed a different set of rules. The Petitioners refer to the file in this connection. Petitioner No. 8 in O.J.C. No. 164/75 was appointed to the Civil Supplies Office as retrenched candidate on recommendation of the Planning & Co-ordination Department. While so serving, he resigned his job. He represented for being taken back into service, but however the Collector intimated him that since his resignation had been accepted, he had to make representation to the Supply Department and obtain the orders of that Department. On his representation the Civil Supply Department intimated the Collector to appoint that clerk. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Civil Supplies Office was an independent office with separate cadre functioning in the District Collectorate. 7. The file relating to framing of separate rules for the Civil Supply Department was produced before us and it was found that the rules have not been finally approved. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Civil Supplies Office was an independent office with separate cadre functioning in the District Collectorate. 7. The file relating to framing of separate rules for the Civil Supply Department was produced before us and it was found that the rules have not been finally approved. The O.A.S. Officers who function as Civil Supplies Officers are paid special pay for arduous nature of work, but not deputation allowance. The appointments of Petitioners 14 and 8 in O.J.C. No. 164/75 do not help the Petitioners in any way. Those actions do not go against the appointments to be made by the Collector. The staff of the Mining Department, Election Department and Panchayat Office belong to the common cadre of the collectorate and they are in the gradation list and promotion, reversion and disciplinary matters relating to the staff of these offices are considered jointly along with the staff of the collectorate. The Petitioners contend that by Annexure-B, the Revenue Department is assuming that it has got power to control the civil supplies staff and such assumption is alleged to be arbitrary. 8. It is not disputed that no cadre has been formed for the Civil Supplies Office under the control of the Collector, but from the aforesaid facts, it appears that under pressure of the Civil Supply Department the civil supplies staff at the level of the collectorate and sub divisional office level are being treated as separate entity. The letters and other communications referred to by the Petitioners prior to 15-4-1963 would show that before the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules of 1963 came into operation, the recruitments and promotions were being made out of the civil supplies units. After the enforcement of the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules from 15-4-1963, the position has changed. If there would have been a separate cadre for the Civil Supply Department, then the question of a separate unit would arise. True it is and also as admitted by the learned Addl. Government Advocate, the Government has been dealing with the. Civil Supplies Office as a separate entity till the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules were enforced. After the enforcement of the said Rules, controversies arose and nothing has yet been done, inasmuch as rules are being framed by different sections of different departments under the administrative control of the collectroate. 9. Government Advocate, the Government has been dealing with the. Civil Supplies Office as a separate entity till the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules were enforced. After the enforcement of the said Rules, controversies arose and nothing has yet been done, inasmuch as rules are being framed by different sections of different departments under the administrative control of the collectroate. 9. For forming a cadre, notification forming the said cadre is to be published in the gazette. Cadres are also formed by rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or by express order by declaring such cadre exercising powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. There has been no declaration, no publication, no rules and no provision for recruitment or transfer or seniority in the gradation list. Interpretation of rules does not depend on conduct of parties and it cannot be spelt out from other documents available. The sanctity is attributed to cadres because it creates vested rights. It is contended by the State Government that even assuming that there was a cadre prior to the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules, the same has disappeared after the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules came into force. Annexures-1 to 30 do not indicate any cadre at all. When there is no statute or rule holding the field, Government can by executive order regulate the services of the employees. In Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another it has been held in para-7 that it does not mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned. It is true that Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point, Government can fill up the gap and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. In para-8 it has been held that the State Government has executive power, in relation to all matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power, to make laws. Reference in this connection has been made to the case of B.N. Nagarajan and Others Vs. State of Mysore and Others, . In P. Radhakrishna and Others Vs. In para-8 it has been held that the State Government has executive power, in relation to all matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power, to make laws. Reference in this connection has been made to the case of B.N. Nagarajan and Others Vs. State of Mysore and Others, . In P. Radhakrishna and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, while dealing with the question whether a particular Government Order can be treated as a rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it has been held that while the source of power can be taken into account merely because such a source exists, every act done by the authority cannot be said to be law. In order to have the validly made rule under Article 309, the Governor and not the Government must first of all exercise the powers vested in him under Article 309 and make a rule regulating the recruitment etc. to the services and then publish the same in the official gazette or in any other prescribed manner for the purpose of informing the public. In the case under consideration of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was found that the Governor had not made any rule in exercise of the power under Article 309, nor was it intended to be a rule under that provision of the Constitution and that it was not published in the official gazette and, as such, it was held that the order of the Government does not amount to a rule under Article 309 of the Constitution. B.N. Nagarajan and Others Vs. State of Mysore and Others, it was held that it is not obligatory under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to make rules of recruitment, etc., before a service can be constituted or a post created or filled and secondly the State Government has executive power, in relation to all matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws. It follows from this that the State Government will have executive power in respect of Schedule 7, List II, Entry 41, State Public Services and there is nothing in the terms of Article 309 of the Constitution which abridges the power of the executive to act under Article 162 of the Constitution without a law. It follows from this that the State Government will have executive power in respect of Schedule 7, List II, Entry 41, State Public Services and there is nothing in the terms of Article 309 of the Constitution which abridges the power of the executive to act under Article 162 of the Constitution without a law. Relying on the aforesaid decisions, it was held in M.G. Sharan and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, that in order to confer legal right upon a Government servant it is essential that cadre should also be legally constituted under Article 309 of the Constitution. It cannot be assumed that due to the notifications by which the new department is constituted under Article 162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution a separate cadre is created. A cadre has to be expressly created as it is of vital importance for conferring fundamental rights upon the employees. It may be under Article 309 of the Constitution, or it can be created by the State Government under the executive power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution, but even under Article 162 of the Constitution it is essential that the cadre should be formally constituted. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that in the counter there is no pleading about absence of any cadre and, as such, the State Government cannot raise such contention. Cadre is creature of rules or statutes or specific orders. The sanctity of the cadre is to confer vested right. In the Orissa Service Code, "cadre" has been defined. It should be declared in the official gazette either by any statute, rule or particular order. In the Instant case, even though the Civil Supplies Office has been formed in the collectorate and in the sub-divisional level, no cadre has been declared as yet. Once there is no separate cadre, or service, to which the Petitioners belong, Government can be executive order from time to time regulate their services. 10. The Orissa Ministerial Service Rules came into force from 15-4-1963. In Rule 2, "District Office" means the office of the District Collector and includes the office of Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation of Holdings. "Offices of Heads of Departments" mean the office of the Board of Revenue and offices of the Revenue Divisional Commissioners. 10. The Orissa Ministerial Service Rules came into force from 15-4-1963. In Rule 2, "District Office" means the office of the District Collector and includes the office of Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation of Holdings. "Offices of Heads of Departments" mean the office of the Board of Revenue and offices of the Revenue Divisional Commissioners. By explanation, it has been added that the office of the Board of Revenue includes the office of the Inspector General of Registration-cum-Excise Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Reforms, Director of Land Records and Survey, Commissioner for Consolidation of Holdings and Director of Consolidation. In Rule 29 relating to application of rules, it has been enumerated that these rules do not apply to Supervisors, Inspectors, Assistant Inspectors of Civil Supplies, which means that the field officers of the Civil Supply Department have been kept outside the application of the rules. This rather indicates that the rules are applicable to the members of the staff other than the field officers as described above, who are under the administrative control of the Collector. This clinches the issue and though not clearly stated, yet it is sufficient to mean that the clerical staff of the Civil Supplies Office under the Collectorate are governed by the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules. 11. In this connection, it is argued that it has already been held that the staff of the Regional Transport Officer and of the Registration Department who are under the administrative control of the Collector have been held by the decision of this Court as not belonging to the establishment of the Collectorate. The aforesaid two sections are governed by statute; one is the Motor Vehicles Act and another is the Registration Act. These statutory provisions clearly indicate that the establishments are creation of the statute under the Indian Registration Act. Bhagaban Sahu v. State of Orissa and Ors. O.J.C. No. 944 of 1971, disposed of on 24-4-1973, disposed of on 24-4-1973 was decided by a Division Bench of this Court. The Inspector General of Registration is the Head of the Department of Registration and has power to make rules from time to time consistent with the Registration Act as contemplated u/s 69 of the Act and the District Registrar makes appointments of class III clerks of his own office and of the offices subordinate to his office, such as Sub-Registrar's Offices. Therefore, officers belonging to that establishment whether of the District Registrar or of the Sub-Registrar are subordinates to the District Registrar as defined u/s 68 of the Indian Registration Act. The Collector is the District Registrar by virtue of the said enactment. In Braja Kishore Misra v. The Charman, R.T.A., Keonjhar O.J.C. No. 141/76 decided on 11-7-1977, by a Division Bench of this Court, it has been held that the Regional Transport Authority is a statutory body set up in terms of the provisions contained in Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and thus is not a part of the collectorate. The Collector happens to be the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority. The aforesaid two sections are regulated by statute and, therefore, they cannot be considered to be part and parcel of the office of the Collector. But in case of Civil Supplies office working under the collectorate, there is no statute, no rule and no specific order and, as such, it cannot be said that it is a separate entity as claimed by the Petitioners. 12. A reference has been made to the case of Nityananda Das v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1973 (2) C.W.R. 1485. That was a case in which the provisions of Rule 15(1) and Rule 21 of the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules were under consideration in connection with an employee belonging to the cadre of Stenographer and the question was whether he was to be appointed as a Senior Assistant ignoring the case of other persons available for the post. Instead of going into details, it can be stated straightway that this decision has been overruled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Raghunath Ransingh v. State of Orissa and Ors. 41(1975) C.L.T. 1079 (F.B.). It has been held in that case that Rule 2 of the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules is exhaustive and the Directorate of Export Promotion and Marketing of the State Government of Orissa is not covered under the Rules as it is not the Head of the Department as described in the Rules. The definition in Rule 2(b) nor the explanation covers the same. The definition being held to be exhaustive, the Directorate of Export Promotion and Marketing does not come under It. Now remains the question whether the case of Agani Charan Rout 1973 (1) C.W.R. 656 has been correctly decided or not. The definition in Rule 2(b) nor the explanation covers the same. The definition being held to be exhaustive, the Directorate of Export Promotion and Marketing does not come under It. Now remains the question whether the case of Agani Charan Rout 1973 (1) C.W.R. 656 has been correctly decided or not. It has been held in that decision that the civil supplies staff under the Collector belong to the district office as defined under Rule 2 of the Rules and are governed by the said Rules. In view of the discussions above, there being no cadre by any of the methods as indicated above, the civil supplies staff of the collector ate are included within the district office staff, as defined in Rule 2 of the Rules and, therefore, the decision in Again Charon Rout case 1973 (1) C.W.R. 656, is correct, subject to the observations made hereunder. In para-4, it is mentioned that the Rules would apply to the Excise and Registration Offices working under the administrative control of the Collector. In view of our discussions made above, the said observation is wrong as it has already been held that the registration staff are governed by statute and are not governed by these rules. 13. Reference has been made to the Rules of 1953 of the Civil Supply Department. But these rules relate to the gazetted staff of the Civil Supply Department as well as the Inspectors and others, but not concerned with the ministerial staff and, therefore, the provisions of the said rules are not applicable. Under Rule 17 of the Orissa Service Code, "gazetted staff" has been mentioned. Considering all the aforesaid factors as well as Rule 29 of the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules, we hold that the Rules are applicable to the civil supplies staff under the administrative control of the Collector. 14. In the premises aforesaid, we come to the unhesitating conclusion that the staff of the civil supplies office working under the administrative control of the Collector are governed by the Orissa Ministerial Service Rules. It is however unfortunate that after introduction of the said Rules the staff employed in the civil supplies offices are treated as a separate unit and no steps have so far been taken either to form a common cadre or two separate cadres. It is however unfortunate that after introduction of the said Rules the staff employed in the civil supplies offices are treated as a separate unit and no steps have so far been taken either to form a common cadre or two separate cadres. It is open to the authorities to constitute as many cadres in any particular service as they may choose according to the administrative convenience and expediency and if, therefore, they choose to bifurcate the staff of the Collectorate into two separate wings they should constitute a separate cadre for the staff of the civil supplies offices. Though the authorities have all along treated the staff of the civil supplies offices as a separate unit no separate gradation list has so far been prepared. No doubt, the authorities have power to create a cadre and also to declare as to who would be included in the cadre but they do not have the power to arbitrarily exclude some members of the staff from the cadre since by such process serious prejudice in the service prospects will be caused to the incumbents who are excluded from the cadre. It is high time that the authorities should take a firm decision whether to form a common cadre of the entire staff working under the administrative control of the Collector or to form a separate cadre for the staff working in the civil supplies offices. 15. Subject to the above observations, the writ applications are dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. P.K. Mohanti, J. 16. I agree. J.K. Mohanty, J. 17. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed