PUTTASWAMY, J, J. ( 1 ) AS the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. ( 2 ) AS on 1-11-1956 on which day the new State of Karnataka comprising of five integrating areas specified in Section 7 of the States Re-organisation Act ('sr Act') came into being, there were sales Tax/commercial Taxes Departments in each of those States administering the sales Tax laws of those States. Under tne SR Act, a number of personnel of those States in different cadres of those departments stood allotted to the new state of Karnataka forming the nucleus of the Commercial Tax Department (Department) of the new State. With the alround development of the new State, the Department has considerably expanded from time to time. ( 3 ) ON 28-5-1959 the Governor of karnataka in exercise of the executive powers conferred on him byarticle 162 of the Constitution sanctioned the establishment of the department in the various cadres indicating the strength of each cadre as on that day. On the same day and simultaneously the Governor in exercise of the legislative powers conferred on him, by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, promulgated the Karnataka Commercial Tax Service Recruitment rules, 1959, inter alia, regulating the quotas between direct recruits and promotees in the different cadres, the qualifications and the method of recruitment to the various cadres of the department. We will hereafter refer to these rules as the C and R Rules of the Department. In the C and R Rules, the cadre of assistant Commercial Tax Officers (ACTOs) with which we are primarily concerned in these cases, is the lowest or the very first gazetted cadre. We are incidentally concerned in these cases with the cadres of Commercial Tax Inspectors (CTI' s) and first Division Clerks (FDCs) of the Department. All these cadres are filled by direct recruitment and promotion in the proportions stipulated in the Rules which has varied from time to time. ( 4 ) ON 18-4-1956, the erstwhile government of old Mysore State, sanctioned 10 posts of FDCs and to fill up those posts steps had been taken by that state which, however, materialised only after the formation of the new State. On 23-11-1957 Government also. sanctioned the creation of 93 posts of FDCs in the Department. ( 4 ) ON 18-4-1956, the erstwhile government of old Mysore State, sanctioned 10 posts of FDCs and to fill up those posts steps had been taken by that state which, however, materialised only after the formation of the new State. On 23-11-1957 Government also. sanctioned the creation of 93 posts of FDCs in the Department. ( 5 ) IN the erstwhile Bombay area, there was only one cadre of cleaks. But, in the other areas and in the new State there were two cadres of Clerks viz. , FDCs and Second Division Clerks (SDCs ). On the representations of the Clerks of the bombay area and others, Government by its various orders made in 1963 directed the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Commissioner) to treat the 93 posts of fdcs sanctioned on 23-11-1957 as promotional posts and accord retrospective promotions to the clerks of the Bombay area against those posts. On the basis of those orders of Government, the Commissioner made several orders according retrospective promotions to several officials. On the basis of those orders and other relevant factors, the Commissioner on 7-7-1969 published the State-wide seniority list of Commercial Tax Inspectors in the Commercial Tax Department as on 1-1-1969. In Writ Petition No. 7227 of 1969, 15 Commercial Tax Inspectors of the department, who had been initially recrui. ted as FDCs but had been later promoted as Commercial Tax Inspectors challenged the validity of the said seniority list as also the determination of the relative seniorities between them and respondents 3 to 81 in that writ petition in the initial cadre of FDCs or between direct recruits and promotees. In the said writ petition, the grievance of those petitioners, one of whom was one J. N. Shivaji Rao who was petitioner No. 1, a direct recruit to the cadre of FDC who had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 477 of 1964, was principally on the rankings assigned to them vis-a-vis the promotees in the cadre of FDCs. On 26-7-1973 chandrasekhar, J. (as His Lordship then was) dismissed the said writ petition which was assailed by them in Writ Appeal nos. 24 and 25 of 1973 before this Court. On 27-3-1979 a Division Bench of this court consisting of Venkatachalaiah and venkatachala, JJ. On 26-7-1973 chandrasekhar, J. (as His Lordship then was) dismissed the said writ petition which was assailed by them in Writ Appeal nos. 24 and 25 of 1973 before this Court. On 27-3-1979 a Division Bench of this court consisting of Venkatachalaiah and venkatachala, JJ. Disagreeing with the views expressed by Chandrasekhar, J. (as His Lordship then was) upheld the contention of the appellants that the promotions made to the cadre of FDC in excess of the vacancies existing from time to time was illegal and that same should be limited to the number of vacancies existing from time to time and not beyond that. On that view, this Court on 27-3-1979 allowed the said appeals, quashed the seniority list impugned in the writ petition with liberty reserved to the authorities to re-do the matters. We will revert to the developments that ensued in pursuance of the said order at a later stage. ( 6 ) ON 15-12-1972 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Narayana Pai, cj and Govinda Bhat, J. (as His lordship then was) in V. B. Badami v. State of Mysore 1975 (1) Karnataka Law journal 356 examining the validity of gradation list or seniority list published by Government on 13-1-1972 in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative service (KAS) Class-1 (Junior Scale) quashed the same set out the principles that should govern in regulating the relative seniority between direct recruits and promotees to that cadre which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court on 17-9-1975 since reported as V. B. Badami etc. etc. v. State of Mysore and others (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1561 ). On the basis of this decision referred to as Badami's case Government in its O. M. No. DPAR 48 SSR 75 dated 5-7-1976 (published in Karnataka Gazette dated 15-7-1976) issued detailed guidelines for classification of. posts covered by quota rules between direct recruitments and promotions, their confirmations and the consequent preparation of seniority or gradation lists in all departments of government. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid guidelines and all other relevant factors, government in its Official Memorandum no. FD 94 CSE 75 (1) dated 13-12-1976 (published in Karnataka Gazette dated 6-1 -1977 at pages 1 to 19 Vol. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid guidelines and all other relevant factors, government in its Official Memorandum no. FD 94 CSE 75 (1) dated 13-12-1976 (published in Karnataka Gazette dated 6-1 -1977 at pages 1 to 19 Vol. 112 Part-I) (1976 List) determined and published the seniority list of officers in the cadre of ACTOs as on 1-7-1976 as set out in the seniority list accompanying the same assigning appropriate rankings to the direct recruits and promotees. In the said list petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 15570 to 15573 of 1984 and 9516 of 1985 who are direct recruits to the cadre of ACTO were assigned higher ranks and purushotam Raju, K. R. Krishnaiah g. Venkatachalamaiah and B. Jayaprakash who are promotees to that cadre were assigned lower ranks. Petitioner in Writ petition No. 9515 of 1985 appointed as a direct recruit to the cadre of Commercial tax Officer (CTO) has joined the direct recruit ACTOs but we prefer to ignore his case. ( 8 ) IN Writ petition No. 1627 and 1628 of 1977 two direct recruits to the cadre of ACTOs viz. , V. K. Radhakrishna and B. C. Narasimha Murthy respectively challenged the aforesaid list in so far as it assigned them lower rankings over thirty promotees. On 1-4-1980 a Division bench of this Court consisting of Chandrashekhar, cj. and Bopanna, J- dismissed the said writ petitions and upheld the said seniority list which was challenged by them in S. L. P. (Civil) No. 9033 of 1980 before the Supreme Court which dismissed the same on 30-10-1980 and a belated review petition filed by B. C. Narasimharnurthy for review with an application for condonation of delay where in notices have been ordered, is still pending disposal before that Court. ( 9 ) ON 9-5-1976, however, published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 21-5-1976, the State enacted the Karnataka Service examinations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 40 of 1976) (1976 Act) giving it retrospective effect from 1-11-1976. The validity of this Act has been upheld by this Court in nadagouda D. Y. and Others v. State of karnataka (1979 (2) Karnataka Law Journal. 1.) The scope and ambit of the Act has been explained by this Court in nadagouda's case and in State of Karnataka and Another V. B. V. Thimappa and others. 1985 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 300. 1.) The scope and ambit of the Act has been explained by this Court in nadagouda's case and in State of Karnataka and Another V. B. V. Thimappa and others. 1985 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 300. ( 10 ) IN Writ Petition No. 2410 of 1978 presented on 6-12-1977 Purushothama raju, K. R. Krishnaiah and G. Venkatachalamaiah who were promotees to the cadre of ACTOs challenged the 1976 list. While that writ petition was pending before this Court, Government under took a further review of promotion in the cadre of actos in term of the 1976 Act and published a review list on 27-2-1978 in no. FD 203 CSE 77 (published in Karnataka Gazette dated 23-3-1978 (1978 list ). In Official Memorandum No. FD CSE 75 dated 9-4-1980 (published in Karnataka gazette dated 11-4-1980) (1980 List) government published a further review of promotions in the cadre of ACTOs on the basis of the order made by this Court in w. As. 24 and 25 of 1973 and the 1976 act, however, adhering to the rankings assigned to direct recruits and promotees in the 1976 list. But, notwithstanding the same, the petitioners in Writ Petition no. 2410 of 1978 filled I. A. No. II on 21-10-1980 for permission to withdraw the same with liberty reserved to file a fresh writ petition to challenge the 1980 list, which was permitted by Rama Jois, J. on 27-10-1980. With the permission so obtained Purushothama Raju, K. R. Krishnaiah and one B. Jaya Prakash also a promotees again approached this Court on 5-12-1980 in Writ Petitions No. 22169, 22169-A and 22169-B of 1980 challenging the 1980 list. We will revert to the disposal of these cases after tracing another interesting and vital development bearing On the same. ( 11 ) IN M. G. Kadali v. State of Karnataka 1982 (2) Karnataka Law Journal 453. a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Chandrashekhar, CJ. and Venkatachala, j. was again called upon to examine the validity of a seniority list published by government in the cadre of Class-1 (Junior Scale) of KAS as on 30-6-1976 and further additions made thereto which necessarily raised the principles for determination of relative seniority between direct recruits and promotees. In that case, this Court ruled that carry forward of direct recruitment or promotional vacancies cannot exceed beyond 3 years. In that case, this Court ruled that carry forward of direct recruitment or promotional vacancies cannot exceed beyond 3 years. the correctness of which is being agitated in an appeal before the Supreme Court. In S. M. Puttabuddi and others v. State of Karnataka and others (Writ Appeal nos. 65 of 1985 and connected cases) we have doubted the correctness of the said principle and referred that question to a Full Bench of this Court on 10-4-1985 on the basis of this ruling, Government in its Official Memorandum No. DPAR 3 ssr83 dated 10-2-1984 (OM) Annexure-E in W. P. Nos. 15570 to 15573 of 1984) has issued general guidelines in the preparation of seniority lists and that order which has given raise to these writ petitions, reads thus. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA no. DPAR 3 SSR 83 Karnataka Government secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore dated 10th February, 1984. OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM sub : Guide-lines to determine the seniority between dfrect recruits and promotees. REF :1. O. M. No. DPAR 48 SSR 75 dated 5-7-1976. 2. O. M. No. DPAR 14 SSR 81 dated 4-5-1982. In official memorandum dated 5th july, 1976 and 4th May 1982 referred to above certain guidelines were issued for determining inter seniority of direct recruits and promotees in State Service Cadres other the Karnataka Administrative Service. These guidelines were based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri V, Badami vs. State of Karnataka and the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ petition No. 4614 of 1976 and the writ appeal No. 444/78 and also the orders in I. A. No. IV/81 in the case of Sri H. M. Chikkabasavaiah and others v. State and others. 2 Subsequently, the Writ Petition no. 4871 /80 etc. , filled by Officers of the karnataka Administrative Service, the High court in its judgment, laid down a new principle relating to carry forward of shortfall in the vacancies of direct recruits/ promotees in a block period based on the observation of the Supreme Court in A. S. Iyer v. Balasubramanyam ( AIR 1980 sc 452 ) and held that carry forward of direct recruitment vacancies cannot extend beyond three years. 3. 3. The ruling of the High Court that the carry forward of direct recruitment vacancies of promotional vacancies cannot extend beyond 3 years, although given in the case of Karnataka Administrative service would be of general application and would have to be implemented in regulating the inter-seniority of direct recruits and promotees in all other State services also. 4. Therefore, while determining the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in various cadres in accordance with the guidelines issued in the official Memorandum dated 5-7-1976, and 4-5-1982, the principle that carry forward of direct recruitment of promotional vacancies should not extend beyond three years should also be observed. Age of each vacancy should be reckoned from the date of its occurrence. Except in the case of the Karnataka Administrative Service, limiting the carry forward to three years should be enforced with effect from the date on which the Cadre and Recruitment rules came into force. 5. Secondly, in para 3 (b) of Official memorandum dated 5-7-1976 it is indicated that if the cadre strength Notification shows only permanent posts, then the classification will have to be done only for such permanent posts. This position is not legally correct in view of the amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) rules 1957 issued in Notification No. GAD 127 SRR 67 dated 26-12-1967 (which permitted the appointment of a probationer to a temporary vacancy likely to continue for not less than three years) and the provisions of Note-2 below Rule 49 (a) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. Therefore, the following sentence appearing in para 3 (b) of the Official Memorandum dated 5-7-1976 is hereby deleted. If the cadre strength notification shows only permanent post, then this classification will have to be done only for such permanent posts but if the Notification show both permanent and temporary posts the classification will have to be done for both the posts taken together, inview of the provisions of Rule 14 of the general Recruitment Rules" 6. The Secretaries to Government and head of Departments are requested to determine the seniority of Direct recruits and promotees in the various cadres (other than the Karnataka Administrative service) following the above principles. Sd. /- Joint Secretary to Government. Dept. of Personnel and Administrative reforms. The Secretaries to Government and head of Departments are requested to determine the seniority of Direct recruits and promotees in the various cadres (other than the Karnataka Administrative service) following the above principles. Sd. /- Joint Secretary to Government. Dept. of Personnel and Administrative reforms. (Service Rules)" on the basis of this Official Memorandum, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Malimath, CJ and Mahendra, J on 15-1-1985 disposed off Writ Petitions Nos. 22169 of 1980 and connected cases filed by Purushotama Raju and two others in the following terms. "these three writ petitions which have been referred to the Division Bench, do not now survive in view of the latest official Memorandum No. DPAR 3 SSR 83 dated 10-2-1984 issued by the State government, Department of Personnel and administrative Reforms Service Rules. It is obvious that in view of this Official memorandum, further steps in the matter of review of promotions have to be taken in accordance with the said order. As this matter is pending for a long time, it is obvious that the State Government should take very expeditious steps for giving effect to this Official Memorandum in accordance with the said order. while disposing of these three writ petition, in the light of the aforesaid official Memorandum, as having become unnecessary, we consider it appropriate to direct respondents I and 2 to review "promotions jn accordance with the said Official Memorandum within a period of six months from this day". On 14-2-1985 the same Bench has rejected Civil Petition No. 37 of 1985 filed by one of the respondents for review of the said order. ( 12 ) ON the basis of the Official memorandum dated 10-2-1984 and the order made by this Court in the aforesaid cases, Government taking the that view a review had to be made at any rate from 28-5-1959 in the cadre of ACTOs and attempted to review from that date on the assumption that all the earlier lists ; in particular the 1976 list was not final. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the Official memorandum and for a declaration that the 1976 list had become final and all further reviews had to be made on the basis of that list only. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the Official memorandum and for a declaration that the 1976 list had become final and all further reviews had to be made on the basis of that list only. ( 13 ) THE petitioners have urged that kadali 's case even if it holds the field on the very principles enunciated therein did not empower Government to unsettle matters and re-open concluded seniority lists and that decision or the decision in purushotam Raju's case did not empower government to re-open the 1976 list at all. ( 14 ) IN resisting these writ petitions, the State Government which did not earlier file its return indicating its stand, filed a memo on 9-9-1985 briefly indicating its stand. In that memo government has propounded that 1976 seniority list had not acquired finality and that it was competent to review and redetermine all questions in conformity with the ruling of this Court in Kadali's case. In their detailed return, the promotees naturally supporting Government have urged more than one preliminary objection to non-suit the petitioners. In the very nature of things it is necessary to examine them first. ( 15 ) THE promotees have urged that the petitioners who were parties to their writ petitions having failed to challenge the O. M. and a direction for a review of the earlier seniority lists based on that o. M. and suffered a judgement thereto in their writ petitions, were barred from challenging the same on the application of the principle of constructive resjudicata and that even otherwise in the preparation of annual seniority list. Government was competent to ignore the earlier determination and make a fresh determination. Sriyuths V. Krishnamurthy and r. N. Narasimha Murthy, learned senior advocates who appeared for the promotees have highlighted these preliminary objections at length. ( 16 ) SRIYUTHS H. B. Datar and u. L. Narayana Rao who appeared for the petitioners have opposed both the preliminary objections urged before us. ( 17 ) WE have earlier set out the official memorandum dated 10-2-1984 and the order made by this Court in purushothama Raju's case in their entirety. ( 18 ) IN Writ petitions Nos. 22169, 22169a and 22169b of 1980 Purushotama raju and two others had only challenged the seniority list of 1980 which, however, was not in supersession of 1976 seniority list. ( 18 ) IN Writ petitions Nos. 22169, 22169a and 22169b of 1980 Purushotama raju and two others had only challenged the seniority list of 1980 which, however, was not in supersession of 1976 seniority list. We must examine the preliminary objections urged before us with these basic and incontrovertible facts. ( 19 ) THE validity of the Official memorandum dated 10-2-1984 was not in challenge or issue and, therefore, this Court did not examine and pronounce on the same at all. Whether the understanding of these petitioners and government that the said Official Memorandum permits unsettling of all settled matters which is the very precise question that calls for our examination has nothing to do with the validity of that Official memorandum that had not been examined and decided by this Court. ( 20 ) THE principles of resjudicata are given statutory recognition in Section 11 of the Code of Civil procedure. Section 11 of the C. P. C. is the legislative exposition of the common law maxim nemo debet, vesari, pro unaet eadem causa. The scope ambit and the limitations to which the rule of resjudicata and section 11 of the Code are subject, have been explained by English Courts, the privy Council, our Supreme Court, this court and various other High Courts in a large number of rulings and a reference to all of them is neither necessary nor desirable. But, we consider it sufficient to notice as to what has been set out by sri William B. Hale in the leading Duchess of Kingston's case, 2. Smith Lead case 13th Ed. Pp. 645, 645 and the ruling of the Supreme Court in DARYAO AND others v. STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS (AIR 1961 S. C. 1457) which has exhaustively explained its scope and ambit. ( 21 ) WHEN we examine the plea of the promotees that the challenge of the petitioners to the Official Memorandum dated 10-2-1984 is barred by constructive resjudicata in the light of the principles enunciated in these cases, we find it difficult to uphold the same. We see no merit in this preliminary objection of the respondents and we reject the same. We see no merit in this preliminary objection of the respondents and we reject the same. ( 22 ) SRI Narasimhamurthy has urged that on the very terms of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Government Seniority rules, 1957 (Seniority Rules) in the preparation of a fresh seniority list for every year, presupposes that all seniority lists prepared earlier stand superseded and Government was bound to prepare the same only in conformity with the law declared by Courts as on that day only. ( 23 ) RULE 10 of the Seniority Rules on which strong reliance nas been placed by Sri Narasimhamurthy to sustain his wide proposition reads thus :"10 (1) There shall be prepared every year for each cadre of service or class of posts a seniority list consisting of the names of all officers borne on the said cadre or class of posts arranged in order of seniority in accordance with the provisions of these rules. (2) The seniority list under sub-rule (1) shall be prepared by:- (a) The Government for Gazetted cadres of service or classes of posts ; (b) The Head of the department concerned for non-gazetted cadres of service or classes of posts ; " Provided that the Government may also prepare the seniority list for non- gazetted cadres of any service or class of posts". This rule directs the preparation of seniority lists in every cadre of every department of Government by the designated authority every year. In case of gazetted cadre/cadres. Government is the authority to prepare seniority lists and in other cadres it is the head of Departments. The object and intendment of this Rule is only to have updated seniority lists in every cadre and nothing more than that. The rule no where authorises and empowers a review of all earlier promotions and re-determination of all earlier rankings made in the earlier seniority lists. In the process of updating seniority lists, it is even inconceivable to hold that earlier seniority lists which have become final should also be reviewed and a fresh determination made. The rule on its terms does not support the very wide construction and proposition suggested on it. We are of the view that the acceptance of any such view would only lead to disastrous results. We find. no merit in this contention of Sri Narasimhamurthy and reject the same. 23 (a ). The rule on its terms does not support the very wide construction and proposition suggested on it. We are of the view that the acceptance of any such view would only lead to disastrous results. We find. no merit in this contention of Sri Narasimhamurthy and reject the same. 23 (a ). As we have rejected the two preliminary objections urged by the promotees, it is now necessary to examine the merits which we now proceed to do. ( 24 ) SRIYUTHS Datar and Narayana Rao have urged that the very last sentence or direction of Clause 4 of the Official memorandum dated 10-2-1984 providing for a review of promotions in all cadres from the promulgation of the C and R Rules or ignoring all earlier determinations and seniority lists prepared from time to time was opposed to all well settled principles of law which is also the very principle enunciated in Kadali's case itself. ( 25 ) SRIYUTHS Chandrasekharaiah, learned government Advocate, appearing for state Government, Krishnamurthy and narasimhamurthy have urged that the sentence or the direction in the Official memorandum to which exception was taken had been issued by Government as expounded by this Court in Kadali's case. ( 26 ) THE very last sentence or direction of Clause-4 of the Official Memorandum to which exception is taken read? thus:"except in the case of Karnataka administrative service, limiting the carry forward to three years should be enforced with effect from the date on which the cadre and Recruitment Rules came into force". This direction directs that the principle of limiting the carry forward rule should be limited for a period of three years only and should be enforced from the date of promulgation of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of every department of Government This direction or principle is sought to be enforced in the department on and from 28-5-1959. Without any doubt, the effect of this direction calls for a review of all appointments and in any event, promotions, re-determination of inter-se rankings between direct recruits and promotees, assignment of fresh rankings and preparation of fresh seniority lists in the Department. Whether this is the sweeping effect of Ksdali's case calls for our examination, even if it is held to be correctly decided and is also affirmed by the supreme Court, must first be examined. Whether this is the sweeping effect of Ksdali's case calls for our examination, even if it is held to be correctly decided and is also affirmed by the supreme Court, must first be examined. An answer to the question really turns on the understanding of the law of precedents recognised in our judical system given constitutional recognition in Article 141 of the Constitution. ( 27 ) IN Kadali's case, this Court dealt and decided the seniority of KAS class-l (Junior Scale) as on 30-6-1976 and the additions made thereto from time to time. The directions issued confined to that question only and were not general or universal directions to be operated somewhat blindly in all Departments of government, at any rate in the Commercial Taxes Department of Government. ( 28 ) IN law, there is a distinction and difference between a decision of a court and that very decision being followed in other cases as a precedent. A decision binds the parties to the case and the principle or ratio. decidendi of that case is applied in other cases as a rule of law only. ( 29 ) A ruling of a Court is followed and applied to pending and future cases. A ruling of a court cannot and is not read or construed as re-opening or affecting concluded matters, even if the decision therein is contrary to that ruling. ( 30 ) THE principles expounded in a case can be applied in all other similar cases pending before Government and its subordinate authorities in a service matter and a general circular to effectuate that can be issued by Government can hardly be doubted. But, this power cannot be confused with the power to reopen settled and concluded matters, as if that is the effect of that ruling, which is not true. ( 31 ) IN Dr. M. R. SHARMA v. STATE of ANDHRA PRADESH 1974 (2) Service law Reporter 822) Chinnappa Reddy. J. (as His Lordship then was) in examining the power of Government to unsettle the seniority once settled expressed thus :" 5. If rule 32 (a) governed the situation Dr. Sharma was undoubtedly senior to Sri Subrahmanyam. That was the stand of the Director of Technical education in his memorandum dated 26th december, 1961 and of the Government in its memorandum dated 7th April, 1967 when they rejected the representations of sri Subrahmanyam. If rule 32 (a) governed the situation Dr. Sharma was undoubtedly senior to Sri Subrahmanyam. That was the stand of the Director of Technical education in his memorandum dated 26th december, 1961 and of the Government in its memorandum dated 7th April, 1967 when they rejected the representations of sri Subrahmanyam. The question of seniority was considered by the Government in accordance with the rules and decided on 7th April, 1967. That decision became final. The Rules do not clothe the Government with any express power of review. The learned Counsel for sri. Subrahmanyam urged that fixation of seniority was an administrative matter and the Government, in exercise of its executive power, had the power to alter, modify or revise its own orders provided the principles of natural justice were observed. I do not agree. No such wide power of review can be claimed for the executive where, in particular matters, the exercise of executive power is regulated by statute. The executive must then exercise the particular power in the manner prescribed by the statute and it cannot ordinarily claim any inherent right to exercise a power not granted by the statute. The utmost power that may be claimed for the executive to revise its earlier decisions "is the power claimed in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government in this very case. In para 5 it was said, "it is submitted that decisions taken in the references quoted by the pefitioner can be revised at any time in the interests of justice and equity, when new facts are brought to light which warrant a revision". Again in para 8 of the counter-affidavit it was said "the time lag will not come in the way of the competent authority from revising its orders once issued, with reference to a representation which brought to light new facts and which warranted such revision on grounds of justice and equity". Thus the utmost that may be claimed for the Government when exercising statutory powers is a power to review its decision when new facts came to light. The power may, perhaps, extend even to the correction of patent errors of a certain kind. We are in respectful agreement with these views. What has been enunciated in this case as also in Kadali's case supports our earlier conclusions. The power may, perhaps, extend even to the correction of patent errors of a certain kind. We are in respectful agreement with these views. What has been enunciated in this case as also in Kadali's case supports our earlier conclusions. ( 32 ) WHEN we examine the last sentence or direction of Clause 4 of the official Memorandum dated 10-2-1984 with reference to the legal principles noticed by us earlier and other well settled legal and juristic principles, it is clear that the same had been issued in clear contravention of all of them. From this it follows that this sentence or direction couched in very wide and unrestricted terms calls for our interference. ( 33 ) SRIYUTHS Datar and Narayana Rao have lastly urged that the 1976 seniority list had become final and the subsequent lists prepared fn 1978 and 1980 on the basis of that list cannot be tinkered with, even if its preparation, assuming for purposes of argument but not conceding, was not in consonance with the principles enunciated in Kadali's case. ( 34 ) SRIYUTHS Chandrasekharaiah, krishna Murthy and Narasimhamurthy have urged that the 1976 seniority list had not attained finality and, therefore, it was open to Government to tinker with the rankings and re-do the matter in the light of the principles enunciated in kadali's case. ( 35 ) WE are of the view that this contention is nothing but a facet of the earlier contention examined and decided by us in favour of the petitioners and for those very reasons the same has to be answered in their favour. We will however, hold that this is an independent, separate and distinct ground unconnected with the earlier ground and examine the same on that basis, ( 36 ) WE have noticed earlier that the 1976 seniority list had not been invalidated by this Court. If there is anything this Court in RADHAKRISHNA v. STATE of KARNATAKA (W, Ps. Nos. 1627 6- 1628 of 1977 decided on 1-4-80 has expressly affirmed the same with which the Supreme Court has also concurred. ( 37 ) IN Writ Petition No. 241 Oof 1978 purushotam Raju and two other promotees who challenged the said list for reasons with which we are not concerned withdrew the said challenge. Nos. 1627 6- 1628 of 1977 decided on 1-4-80 has expressly affirmed the same with which the Supreme Court has also concurred. ( 37 ) IN Writ Petition No. 241 Oof 1978 purushotam Raju and two other promotees who challenged the said list for reasons with which we are not concerned withdrew the said challenge. On the second occasion i. e. , in Writ Petition No. 22169 of 1980 and connected cases they did not even challenge the said list. At any rate, this Court in its order dated 15-7-1985, which we have set out in full earlier, did not even examine, much less invalidate, the same. ( 38 ) A cursory or a close examination of the 1978 and 1980 lists reveal that they were not in supersession of the 1976 list at all. On the other hand, fhey were prepared only on the basis or foundation of the 1976 list. The 1978 and 1980 lists were not in derogation or revocation of the 1976 list but they were in supplement or addition of that list only to the extent they became necessary by the events and circumstances noticed by us in some detail. ( 39 ) THE decision rendered by this court in W. A. Nos. 24 and 25 of 1973, the list prepared by Government in pursuance of that order or the further list prepared by Government on 9-4-1980 and the very last order made by this Court in purushotam Raju's case also do not in any wa/ affect the finality of the 1976 list. From this also it follows that it is not open to Government to tinker with the rankings assigned to the parties in the 1976 list. ( 40 ) WHAT emerges from our above discussion is that the 1976 seniority list, whatever be its legality had become final and can only be modified in terms of an order that may be made by the Supreme court or this Court in any other case whether pending or filed hereafter. When once we reach the conclusion that the 1976 list had reached finality for whatever reason that may be, it necessarily follows from the same that the rankings assigned in that list cannot be tinkered with and all further preparations must be on the basis of that list only. When once we reach the conclusion that the 1976 list had reached finality for whatever reason that may be, it necessarily follows from the same that the rankings assigned in that list cannot be tinkered with and all further preparations must be on the basis of that list only. We are also of the view that this conclusion flows from the ruling of the Supreme court in S. K. Ghosh and another v. union of India and others (AIR 1968 Supreme court 1385) and also from Kadali's case, ( 41 ) IN the light of our above discussion, we make the following orders and directions : (a) We strike down the very last sentence of Clause 4 of the Official memorandum No. DPAR 3 SSR 83 dated 10-2-1984 of Government which reads thus ;"except in the case of Karnataka administrative Service, limiting the carry forward to three years should be enforced with effect from the date on which the cadre and recruitment Rules came into force ". (b) We declare that the seniority list published by Government in the cadre of ACTOs as on 1 -7-1976 in official Memorandum NO. FD 94 cse 75 (1) dated 13-12-1976 had become final and that in the preparation of further seniority lists in that cadre, Gvoernment should only proceed on the rankings assigned in that list except when a modification is called for in compliance of an order to be made by the Supreme Court or this Court in any other case. ( 42 ) WRIT petitions are disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .