JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner Shri K. L. Jain is a substantive member of the Madhya Pradesh Cadre of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS ). Before his appointment to the I A. S. he was a substantive member of the State Civil Service (Executive ). By State Governments letter dated 3rd February 1979 the petitioner was informed that he was assigned 1972 as the year of allotment by the Central Government. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner contends that he ought to have been assigned 1971 as the year of allotment in place of 1972. ( 2. ) THE facts briefly stated are that the Selection Committee constituted under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 met in December 1974 for preparation of a list of such members of the State Civil Service as were suitable for promotion to the i. A. S. The petitioners name was included in this list. The list was approved by the Union Public Service Commission on 16th May 1975 and became the Select List. The petitioner was appointed Collector which is a senior post by order dated 7th November 1975. The petitioner took over charge as Collector on 10th November 1975. Another Select List was prepared in January 1976. In this also the petitioners name was included. By the Central Governments order dated 7th December 1976 the petitioner was appointed to the I. A. S. by the Government of India. We have already stated that the petitioner was assigned 1972 as the year of allotment. ( 3. ) THE assignment of year of allotment is governed by Rule 3 of the indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. The relevant clause of this rule which is applicable to the petitioner in clause (3) (b) which reads as follows : " (3) The year of allotment of an Officer appointed to the Service after the commencement of these rules shall be- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Where the officer is appointed to the Service by promotion in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, the year of allotment of the junior-most among the officers recruited to the service in accordance with rule 7 of these rules who officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date of commencement of such officiation by the former: provided that the year of allotment of an officer appointed to the service in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Recruitment rules who started officiating continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date on which any of the officer recruited to the Service in accordance with rule 7 of those Rules so started officiating, shall be determined ad hoc by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned : explanation 1-In respect of an officer appointed to the Service by promotion in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Recruitment rules, the period of his continuous officiation in a senior post shall, for the purposes of determination of his seniority, count only from the date of the inclusion of his name in the Select List, or from the date of ibis officiating appointment to such senior post, whichever is later: explanation 2-An officer shall be deemed to have officiated continuously in a senior post from a certain date if during the period from that date to the date of his confirmation in the senior grade he continues to hold without any break or reversion a senior post otherwise than as a purely temporary or local arrangement;" ( 4. ) IT is not in dispute that the post of Collector is a senior post. ) IT is not in dispute that the post of Collector is a senior post. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was continuously officiating on a senior post from 10th November 1975 till the date of his appointment to the i. A. S. It is further not in dispute that if the petitioners continuous officiation is reckoned from 10th November 1975, he would be entitled to 1971 as the year of allotment in accordance with Rule 3 (3) (b) as that was the year of allotment of Smt. Mala Shrivastava, the junior-most among the officers directly recruited to the service who officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date of commencement of such officiation by the petitioner. It is on this basis that the petitioner contends that he should be assigned 1971 as the year of allotment. ( 5. ) THE learned Deputy Advocate General and the learned Standing counsel for the Union of India contend that the petitioner is not entitled to count his continuous officiation on a senior post from 10th November 1975 but only from 1st October 1976. It is argued that the appointment of the petitioner to the senior post was not approved by the Central Government for any period prior to 1st October 1976. It is also submitted that there was no vacancy in the cadre strength of promotes from 10th November 1975 to 30th September 1976 and, therefore, also the petitioners appointment to the cadre post during this period should be ignored. It is further submitted that there was over utilisation of the State Deputation Reserve Quota and for this reason also the officiating appointment of the petitioner on the senior post during the aforesaid period had to be ignored. ( 6. ) THE appointment of the petitioner to the senior cadre post was made in accordance with rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre)Rules, 1954. This rule reads as follows:- "9. Temporary appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre posts.- (1) A cadre post in a State may be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer if the State Government is satisfied- (a) that the vacancy is not likely to last for more than three months or (b) that there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy. (2) Where in any State a person other than a cadre officer is appointed to a cadre post for a period exceeding three months, the State Government shall forthwith report the fact to the Central Government together with the reasons for making the appointment. (3) On receipt of a report under sub-rule (2) or otherwise, the central Government may direct that the State Government shall terminate the appointment of such person and appoint thereto a cadre officer, and where any direction is so issued, the State Government shall accordingly give effect thereto. (4) Where a cadre post is likely to be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer for a period exceeding six months, the Central Government shall report the full facts to the Union Public Service Commission with the reasons for holding that no suitable officer is available for filling the post and may in the light of the advice given by the Union Public service Commission give suitable direction to the State Government concerned. " ( 7. ) A perusal of Rule 9 would show that the State Government can make a temporary appointment of a non-cadre officer to a cadre post if it is satisfied that the vacancy is not likely to last for more than three months or that there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy. In the instant case, the petitioners appointment as a non-cadre officer to the cadre post lasted for nearly one year and one month. Such an appointment could be made by the State Government on being satisfied there was no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy. It is not stated in any of the returns that this condition was not satisfied when the petitioner was appointed. We have, therefore, to assume that the condition was satisfied for the presumption is that everything is done in a regular manner. After a non-cadre officer is appointed to a cadre post Rule 9 (2) requires the State government to make a report of that fact to the Central Government together with the reasons for making the appointment. It appears from the documents produced at the time of hearing that such a report was made to the central Government on 26th June 1976. It appears from the documents produced at the time of hearing that such a report was made to the central Government on 26th June 1976. The Central Government by letter dated 19th February 1977 asked for a consolidated proposal for approval of officiation of non-cadre officers on cadre posts for the half year ending 30th september 1976. The State Government thereupon sent the required proposal on 29th March 1977. No other document relating to the formalities required under Rule 9 was produced before us. It is neither stated in the return nor contended that the Central Government did not consult the u. P. S. C. as required under Rule 9 (4) or that the U. P. S. C. did not approve the petitioners officiation. There is no communication placed before us showing disapproval of the petitioners appointment to a cadre post from 10th November 1975 to 30th September 1976. All that can be said is that there is no specific approval of the Central Government to the petitioners officiation for this period. Rule 9 does not make it a condition precedent for the validity of appointment of a non-cadre officer to a cadre post by the State Government that such an appointment must be approved by the central Government or by the U. P. S. C. in case it exceeds six months. All that it requires is that the State Government has to report the appointment to the Central Government and if the Central Government directs that the appointment should be terminated, the State Government has to follow that direction. Similarly, if the appointment is likely to continue for a period exceeding six months, the Central Government has to report the fact to the U. P. S. C. to obtain the Commissions advice and the Central Government can give suitable directions to the State Government in the light of the advice given by the Commission. In the instant case, the Central Government never directed the State Government to terminate the petitioners appointment. It is also not the case that the U. P. S. C. tendered any advice to the Central Government that the appointment be terminated. In the instant case, the Central Government never directed the State Government to terminate the petitioners appointment. It is also not the case that the U. P. S. C. tendered any advice to the Central Government that the appointment be terminated. It is true that there is no specific approval of the Central Government to the appointment of the petitioner but that is not a condition precedent for a valid appointment under Rule 9 and the petitioners officiation in a senior cadre post from 10th November 1975 to 30th September 1976 cannot be ignored on the ground that the appointment was not specifically approved by the central Government. The petitioners said officiation cannot also be ignored on the ground that there was no vacancy during this period in the promotion quota of the cadre officers. It is stated in the return that the promotion quota was 50 prior to 1st October 1976 and that this was increased to 56 on 1st October 1976. It has to be noticed that when a non cadre officer whose name has come in the Select List is appointed to a senior cadre post, he is not appointed to the service. Rule 9 does not require that appointment of a non-cadre officer to a cadre post can be made only when there is a vacancy in the promotion quota. All that the rule says is that the State Government should be satisfied that there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy. The petitioners appointment to the service was made by order dated 7th December 1976 when there was admittedly a vacancy for him in the promotion quota of cadre officers. But as the existence of a vacancy is not a condition precedent for making an appointment under Rule 9 of a non-cadre officer to a cadre post, the petitioners appointment from 10th november 1975 to 30th September 1976 cannot be held to be invalid or ignored. On the same reasoning the fact that the State Government had over utilised the Deputation Reserve quota during this period can have no bearing on the question of the validity of the petitioners appointment on the cadre post. On the same reasoning the fact that the State Government had over utilised the Deputation Reserve quota during this period can have no bearing on the question of the validity of the petitioners appointment on the cadre post. It may be that if the Central Government thought that the state Government was wrong in over utilising the Deputation Reserve quota which gave rise to a vacancy of a cadre post, it could have directed the State government to terminate the petitioners appointment but such a course was never adopted. As the Central Government did not issue any direction to the state Government to terminate the petitioners appointment, the appointment has to be held to be valid and given effect to The petitioners continuous officiation in a senior post from 10th November 1975 was in accordance with Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules and the same enures for his benefit to give him seniority under rule 3 (3) (b) of the Seniority Rules. The petitioner ought to have been assigned 1971 as the year of allotment and given seniority accordingly. ( 8. ) THE conclusion reached by us is fully supported by two decisions of the Supreme Court viz. , Harjeet Singh v. Union of India ( AIR 1980 SC 1275 ) and Amrik Singh v. Union of India ( AIR 1980 SC 1447 ) Both these cases relate to the assignment of the year of allotment to officers promoted to the Indian Police Service the rules relating to which are almost identically worded. In Harjeet Singhs case it was specifically ruled that the non-cadre officers cannot be denied the benefit of continuous officiation in a senior post merely because the Deputation Reserve quota was over utilised, In Amrik Singhs case it was held that an officer could not be denied the benefit of continuous officiation on a cadre post simply on the ground that the State Government failed to report the appointment to the Central Government and the Central Government failed to consult the U. P. S. C. According to the view taken in this case, the administrative lapses of the State Government or the Central Government in complying with the formalities of making a report or consulting the U. P. S. C. cannot prejudice the officer and in a case where there are such lapses the Central government should relax the rules. So far as the instant case is concerned, we have already shown that the appointment was reported by the State government to the Central Government and that it was not pleaded that the central Government did not consult the U. P. S. C. It cannot, therefore, be said that Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules was not followed and the question of relaxation, does not arise. ( 9. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the central Government has no power to terminate an appointment under rule 9 of the Cadre Rules retrospectively. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied upon two decisions of the Allahabad High Court, viz. , rajendra Coomar v. The Union of India (Civil Misc. Writ No. 474 (424-A of 1976)decide On 9th December 1976.) and Ram Dularey Pandey v. Union of India and others (1979 Uchcha Nyayalaya Nirhaya Patrika 238 ). Both these cases relate to the appointment to the indian Police Service. As in the instant case the petitioners appointment was never terminated, the question whether the Central Government could under Rule 9 retrospectively terminate the appointment does not arise. ( 10. ) THE learned Deputy Advocate General lastly submitted that the approval of the Central Government to the petitioners appointment to the cadre post was necessary under the proviso to clause (1) of section 111 of schedule II to the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. He has placed before us the proviso to section III as printed in the All India Services manual, Part II, corrected upto 1-2-1979. The All India Services Manual corrected upto 1st February 1975 has also been placed before us by the learned connsel for the petitioner. Section III of Schedule II as printed in the manual produced by the petitioner is differently worded. The manual produced by the learned Deputy Advocate General does not show as to when the change was made. We will, however, assume that section III of Schedule II as printed in the manual corrected upto 1st February 1979 was applicable to the petitioner. The heading of section III is "fixation of initial pay of a member of the State Civil Service falling under rule 4 (5 ). We will, however, assume that section III of Schedule II as printed in the manual corrected upto 1st February 1979 was applicable to the petitioner. The heading of section III is "fixation of initial pay of a member of the State Civil Service falling under rule 4 (5 ). " The proviso to clause (1) of section III says that if a member of the State Civil service had already officiated in a cadre post with the approval of the Central government and in consultation with the U. P, S. C, as the case may be, his pay under this section shall be fixed at a stage not lower than the pay he drew in the senior time scale of the I. A. S. while last officiating in such a post subject to the condition that the period of earlier officiation in a cadre post is in accordance with the provisions of rule 9 of the Cadre Rules. The learned deputy Advocate General laid stress on the requirement of the approval of the central Government to the officiation in a cadre post and submitted that this approval is necessary even to make the officiation valid under rule 9 of the cadre Rules. We are unable to agree. The proviso requires two things: (1) that the officiation in a cadre post was with the approval of the Central government and (2) that such an officiation was in accordance with Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules. The language of the proviso itself shows that the requirement of approval is an additional requirement and is not embraced in Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules. If the approval were required under Rule 9 of the Cadre rules, it would be unnecessary to mention the condition of approval separately. The condition of approval by the Central Government required by the proviso is only for pay fixation. It has nothing to do with the validity of the officiation of a non-cadre officer in a cadre post under Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules. The requirement of approval of the Central government as contained in the proviso to clause (1) of section III of Schedule II to the Pay Rules cannot be imported either in Rule 9 of the Cadre rules or in Rule 3 (3) (b) of the Seniority Rules. ( 11. The requirement of approval of the Central government as contained in the proviso to clause (1) of section III of Schedule II to the Pay Rules cannot be imported either in Rule 9 of the Cadre rules or in Rule 3 (3) (b) of the Seniority Rules. ( 11. ) IN addition to claiming that the petitioner should be assigned 1971 as the year of allotment and his seniority should be fixed on that basis, the petitioner has also prayed for consequential reliefs. The question as to what would be the consequential reliefs as a result of refixation of seniority has not been argued and we need not, therefore, discuss that question. All that we need say is that we hope and trust that the State Government and the Central Government will give to the petitioner all consequential reliefs to which he may be entitled on refixation of his seniority. ( 12. ) THE petition is allowed. We direct that the petitioner be assigned 1971 as the year of allotment under Rule 3 (3) (b) of the Seniority Rules and that his placement in the seniority list be accordingly revised. There will be no order as to costs of this petition. Security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.