(1) THE decision rendered by this court in Raghavendra Rao v. Dy. Commissioner does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the High court when the matter giving rise to the present appeal was argued before the High court. Under the circumstances, observations made by the High court in regard to the validity of the Rules insofar as the need for prior approval of central government in regard to change of condi- tions relating to departmental promotion cannot be considered to be good law. That in matters relating to travelling allowance, discipline, con- trol, classification, appeal, conduct, probation and departmental promotion, previous approval under S. 115(7 of the States Re- . organization Act would not be necessary in view of the Memorandum dated 11/05/1957 addressed by the central government to all the con- cerned governments is now settled law in view of Raghavendra Rao case. Subject to this clarification we do not consider it necessary to interfere with the order passed by the High court. The promotion given to the respondent should not be disturbed. The order of the High court insolar as the impugned order of reversion of the respondent has been quashed and set aside is confirmed. We only restate the position that the law which governs the question regarding previous approval is the law laid down by this court in Raghavendra Rao case. Subject to this clarification the appeal will stand dismissed with no order as to costs.