( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing the respondents to include his name at an appropriate place in the cadre of Civil Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates, and further to direct respondent-1 i. e. , the State of Karnataka, to consider his case for promotion to the category of District Judges in the State Judicial Service. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner joined judicial service as a clerk in the year 1948 in the erstwhile state of Bombay. Consequent on the reorganisation of States, he was allotted to the state of Mysore (now Karnataka ). He was selected and appointed as Munsiff in the state Judicial Service in the year 1964. He was promoted to the post of Civil Judge in the year 1974 on the basis of seniority. When the petitioner was working as an additional Civil Judge at Shimoga in the year 1976, on the recommendation of the high Court, he was compulsorily retired from the judicial service in accordance with note-1 to Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil services Rules 1958 (Rules ). On April 13, 1976 the petitioner made a representation to the High Court and the government seeking review of the said order of compulsory retirement. Upon consideration of the said representation and upon the undertaking given by the petitioner on some conditions, the High court 'agreed for his reinstatement on certain terms. Thereupon, the Government by order dated June 26, 1979, reinstated the petitioner as Civil Judge and thereby confirmed his re-employment as Special Officer and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary to Government (Legal Aid Cell), Department of law and Parliamentary Affairs, with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement i. e. , March 25, 1976. His period of absence was treated as leave without pay and he was treated to be as on duty. Further, the petitioner was granted all consequential benefits including payment of back salary to him. This appointment and payment of salary were all without reference or concurrence of the High Court. Upon reinstatement the High Court treated the petitioner as in judicial service. That is the only bone of contention in this writ petition. , ( 3 ) MR. Further, the petitioner was granted all consequential benefits including payment of back salary to him. This appointment and payment of salary were all without reference or concurrence of the High Court. Upon reinstatement the High Court treated the petitioner as in judicial service. That is the only bone of contention in this writ petition. , ( 3 ) MR. Dayananda Karanth, learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us mainly two grounds: (i) that the petitioner having been reinstated as Civil Judge, his name cannot be excluded from the Civil list of the judicial officers of the cadre of civil list of the judicial officers of the cadre of Civil Judges and Chief Judicial magistrates, and (2) that once the petitioner has been reinstated as Civil judge, by the State Government, his lien continues in the cadre of judicial officers, which cannot be discontinued unless he is absorbed in a substantive post in any other department. ( 4 ) SRI S. G. Sundaraswamy, learned counsel for respondent-2, on the other hand, urged that the resolution of the High Court in pursuance of which the State Government re-instated the petitioner did not give him any right in the judicial service and that was also confirmed by the subsequent and unilateral acts of posting given and payment made to the petitioner by the government. ( 5 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to the correspondence between the State Government and the high Court and the Resolutions of the high Court, preceding the reinstatement of the petitioner. ( 6 ) AFTER the compulsory retirement, the petitioner made a representation dated april 13, 1976 to the High Court seeking review of the decision to retire him prematurely with a copy thereof to the State government. The Government by its letter dated April 28, 1976 requested the High court to furnish its views on the said review petition. Thereafter, the petitioner made a further representation to the Government on September 20, 1976 requesting that he may be provided with an equivalent post in the law Department or some other Department of the State, stating therein that the Hon'ble Chief Justice had told him to make such a request before the government. The Government by its letter dated March 8, 1977, sought for the views of the High Court on the said representation viz. The Government by its letter dated March 8, 1977, sought for the views of the High Court on the said representation viz. , about his request for providing him an appointment in the Law Department or any other Department of the State government. ( 7 ) ON March 8, 1977 the petitioner simultaneously made a further representation to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice stating that if the order of compulsory retirement is revoked he would certainly be accommodated in some other department of the State Government. There he said:"what your Lordship wants is only that i should not work as a Judicial Officer. I swear in the name of Almighty God that i will be certainly accommodated in the other department by mutual understanding after the revocation of the order of the compulsory retirement. I, therefore, most humbly and respectfully appeal to your lordship's Divine and Saintly heart for recommending to the Government for revocation of the compulsory retirement order and for re-instatement without further delay. Such act of kindness by your lordship towards this poor family will be highly appreciated and amply rewarded by the Almighty God":it is clear from the above representation that the petitioner had an assurance from the State Government that he would be given an appointment in some Department of the State Government if the High Court were to recommend for revocation of the retirement order. On April 16, 1977 he made another representation to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the relevant portion of which reads:"under the facts and circumstances stated above and also under the facts and circumstances stated in my review petition and the other two petitions, I most humbly and respectfully pray your lordship to reconsider my case with open mind and revoke the retirement orders and reinstate me at least by the end of this month as assured by your Lordship. The Government will certainly accommodate or put me in the law Department. Moreover your lordship put me a question on the other day i. e. , on 7. 3. 1977 as to whether I would allow the present order of compulsory retirement to stand if the Government did not take me to the Law Department on the High Court revoking the retirement. I submitted to your Lordship that in that case, I would retire voluntarily. Even now i give the same undertaking". 3. 1977 as to whether I would allow the present order of compulsory retirement to stand if the Government did not take me to the Law Department on the High Court revoking the retirement. I submitted to your Lordship that in that case, I would retire voluntarily. Even now i give the same undertaking". Even from the above representation it is abundantly clear that all that the petitioner wanted the High Court to do was only to recommend for revocation of the order of the retirement in order to enable the State government to give him an appointment in the Law Department; that too on the strength of the assurance from the Government to that effect as stated in the petitioner's earlier representations. He has further made it clear that if for any reason the Government did not give him an appointment as promised, he would voluntarily accept the retirement. ( 8 ) ON December 8, 1977 the petitioner made a further representation inter alia stating:"i therefore most humbly and respectfully pray His Lordship, the Hon'ble Chief justice and also their Lordships the hon'ble Judges for reinstating me at least on compassionate ground. I beg to submit further that I will not claim my arrears of salary and I am prepared to work either in the Judicial or non-judicial Department. "on the above representations of the petitioner to the effect that he would be taken by the Government in the Law department or any other Department in the event of his reinstatement as also on his plea to recommend his reinstatement on compassionate grounds on his undertaking not to claim arrears of salary the High court in its Full Court meeting held on december 13, 1977 passed the following resolution:"the Full Court having considered the representations of Shri M. N. Doddamani for review of his compulsory retirement order, and also his undertaking given by his letter dated 8. 12. 1977 submitted that he will not claim any arrears or back salary and that he is willing to work either in the judicial Department or non-judicial Department, on purely compassionate grounds, resolves that the High Court has no objection to Shri Doddamani's reinstatement in service on condition that he is posted permanently to a non-judicial post without back salary". 12. 1977 submitted that he will not claim any arrears or back salary and that he is willing to work either in the judicial Department or non-judicial Department, on purely compassionate grounds, resolves that the High Court has no objection to Shri Doddamani's reinstatement in service on condition that he is posted permanently to a non-judicial post without back salary". (Emphasis added) from the above resolution it is clear that the High Court found that the petitioner was not suitable for the judicial service, however it had no objection for his reinstatement subject to the condition that he is posted permanently to a non-judicial post without back salary. The above resolution was duly communicated to the State government along with a copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner. ( 9 ) BY a letter dated May 23, 1978, the government sought some clarification from the High Court on the conditions incorporated in the resolution dated December 13, 1977. The Government wanted to know whether the petitioner might be reinstated as a Civil Judge and whether the question of appointing him to a non-judicial post might be considered separately. This letter was considered by the Full Court which passed a resolution dated March 27, 1979 reiterating as follows:" "resolution: Resolved that the Government may be informed that the High Court has no objection for the reinstatement of shri M. N. Doddamani as Civil Judge, provided that he is posted permanently to a non-judicial post and that the question of reinstatement as a Civil Judge and the question 'of appointing him to a non-judicial post be not considered separately". (Emphasis added ). By this resolution, it is needless to state that the High Court only reiterated its earlier resolution dated December 13, 1977 and - clarified that it had no objection for the Government reinstating the petitioner in Government service and appointing him permanently to a non-judicial po. st subject to the condition that he shall not be entitled to any back salary. ( 10 ) WE may pause here to mention that even before these correspondence, the government had re-employed the petitioner as a Special Officer and Ex-Officio Deputy secretary to Government (Legal Aid Cell), department of law and Parliamentary affairs. ( 11 ) AS earlier stated, by Government order dated June 26, 1979, the petitioner was reinstated as a Civil Judge. ( 10 ) WE may pause here to mention that even before these correspondence, the government had re-employed the petitioner as a Special Officer and Ex-Officio Deputy secretary to Government (Legal Aid Cell), department of law and Parliamentary affairs. ( 11 ) AS earlier stated, by Government order dated June 26, 1979, the petitioner was reinstated as a Civil Judge. The petitioner's reinstatement as Civil Judge under the said order of the Government was with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement i. e. March 25, 1976. His period of absence was treated as leave without pay and he was treated to be as on duty. The said order reads:"accordingly, in partial modification of g. O. No. LAW 53 LAC 79 dated 26. 6. 1979, the period of absence of Shri m. N". Doddamani, Special Officer and Ex. Officio Deputy Secretary to Government, department of Law and Parliamentary affairs (Land Reforms Cell) from 29. 3. 1976 (i. e. , the date on which the order of compulsory retirement bearing No. LAW 174 lac 75 dated 25. 3. 1976 was served on him) to the date of his taking charge on re-employment as Special Officer and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary to Government, department of Law and Parliamentary affairs, is treated as on duty. Further, it is also ordered that the benefit of reinstatement and all consequential benefits be extended to Shri M. N. Doddamani, OOD as Special Officer and Ex-Officio Deputy secretary to Government Department of law and Parly. Affairs (Land Reforms cell ). 2. This order issues in accordance with the concurrence of Finance Department vide its U. O. Note No. FD/0-389/exp-7/80 dated 4th June, 1980. " ( 12 ) THE question now is whether by virtue of such reinstatement and appointment to Secretariat Service, the petitioner became a permanent employee of the Stale government or whether he still retained his lien as a judicial officer in the cadre of Civil Judges in the Judicial Department of the State. ( 13 ) SRI Karanth's contention is that once the petitioner was reinstated as a Civil judge in pursuance of the resolution passed by the High Court, his lien continues in the cadre of Judicial Officers and that cannot be removed without his consent and unless he is permanently absorbed in any other post. According to Mr. ( 13 ) SRI Karanth's contention is that once the petitioner was reinstated as a Civil judge in pursuance of the resolution passed by the High Court, his lien continues in the cadre of Judicial Officers and that cannot be removed without his consent and unless he is permanently absorbed in any other post. According to Mr. Karanth, in giving its consent for the reinstatement of the petitioner, the High Court had only placed a bar for the petitioner being given a judicial post. The High Court had not expressly removed or transferred the petitioner from its service, and as such it cannot be said that by virtue of his appointment by the State Government in its Secretariat service, his lien in the parent department did not subsist and therefore, he cannot be denied the right of being considered for promotion as a District judge. ( 14 ) WE do not find any substance in these contentions. The petitioner is now trying to have the best of both the words. The trend of the correspondence, the terms of. the resolutions of the High Court and the sequence of events culminating in the reinstatement and appointment of the petitioner to a substantive post in the Secretariat service lead us to the only irresistible conclusion that the lien of the petitioner in the judicial department automatically came to be lost or perished. There are two methods by which a person belonging to one Department of the state Government can go out of the parent department and become completely absorbed in another department. One such method is by appointment to a substantive post in the other department, which creates a lien on the new post thereby destroying the lien in the post to which he originally belonged. Secondly, if a government servant is permanently transferred from one department to another, his lien in the parent department ceases automatically. In S. B. SURANNA vs. STATE OF mysore (1966 (2) Mysore Law Journal 372), this Court observed at page-376:"we cannot accede to the view pressed on us by Mr. Government Pleader that there was no substantive appointment. The argument maintained was that since the petitioner continued to have a lien in the judicial Department when he was appointed to the selection post, the existence of that lien was an impediment to the appointment being considered as substantive. Government Pleader that there was no substantive appointment. The argument maintained was that since the petitioner continued to have a lien in the judicial Department when he was appointed to the selection post, the existence of that lien was an impediment to the appointment being considered as substantive. We do not agree that is how we should understand the appointment. The contention that the lien in the Judicial Department did not make the appointment substantive is to beg the question which has to be answered since under Rule 18 (b) a substantive appointment by its own force removes the lien without any order for such removal". In the said case, the question before the court was whether the petitioner therein, who was a stenographer in the judicial department of the State of Mysore, having been transferred permanently to the Public service Commission could retain his lien in the parent department even without any order being made by any one for its removal therefrom. This Court observed at page-377:"if the Public Service Commission selected the petitioner for the appointment in that way, and appointed him to the post, every other antecedent circumstance including the fact that the petitioner was at one stage an employee of the judicial department or was a stenographer who was sent to the Public Service Commission on exchange basis, becomes irrelevant. The source of his appointment was his selection on the basis of his own merit and seniority, which alone, governed and regulated the choice. On such appointment, even if there was any antecedent association between any other department and the petitioner, that association came to an end and he became the occupant of a permanent post in the Public Service Commission having been substantively appointed to it in the same way in which any other Government servant occupying an inferior post in any department becomes substantively appointed to a higher post either, because of 'his success in a competitive examination or because of his selection under relevant statutory provisions. When a Government servant holding an inferior post in some department of the State is a candidate for a higher post such as the post of a Munsiff or to a post in the Indian Administrative service, and, the like, for which a selection is regulated by statutory provisions, and is selected, there would be small reason for thinking that there is no substantive appointment to the higher post or that there could be any outstanding nexus with the old post. The appointment of the petitioner was in no manner different. We are therefore of the opinion that there was a permanent transfer of the petitioner to the office of the Public Service Commission when he was appointed on July 3, 1957. In any event, we think that his appointment to the selection post on January 18, 1963 which was a very important landmark in the petitioner's official career, was a substantive appointment within the meaning of Rule 18 (b ). It is by these processes that the association between petitioner and his parent department came to an end and there was an acquisition of a lien by him over the post occupied by him in the Public Service Commission to the exclusion of the lein which he had in the Judicial Department. " ( 15 ) THE above decision is in point on the issue raised in this case. It is clear from the resolution of the High Court dated december 13, 1977, which resolution was reiterated by its subsequent resolutions, particularly the resolution dated March 30, 1979, that the High Court had no objection for the reinstatement of the petitioner in service on condition that he is posted permanently to a non-judicial post and that the question of his reinstatement as a Civil judge and the question of appointing him to a non-judicial post are not to be considered separately. Admittedly, the petitioner never rejoined judicial service. He was reinstated by the Government directly in the secretariat service and posted to a substantive post with retrospective effect i. e. , with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement from service. It is further to be noted that he was taken into service by the State Government on payment of all his back salary without reference to the High Court. It is further to be noted that he was taken into service by the State Government on payment of all his back salary without reference to the High Court. The consent of the High Court was not taken either for payment of back salary contrary to the petitioner's undertaking or to substantive appointment which the Government gave. If the petitioner had retained his lien in the judicial department as a judicial officer, the Government has no power to extend such benefits to the petitioner without reference or concurrence of the High court. Hence, in law and on proved facts the petitioner's lien was lost when he was taken over the Government and appointed in the Secretariat. It is needless to state that the petitioner acquired a lien in the cadre of post to which he was appointed in the State Secretariat service and as such he is entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing there from. ( 16 ) IN the result and with the observations made above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .