JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - Vacancies arose of sixteen Revenue Inspectors in the Service of Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, in the year 1976. Revenue Inspectors were included in the group of Revenue Service. In accordance with para 3 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Services (Designations, Scale of Pay, Qualifications, Conveyance, Allowances and Method of Recruitment) Order, 1963, read with the Schedule appended to the order these posts had to be fulled in form the following sources : (1) 25% by direct recruitment ; (2) 25% by promotion from Collection Amins and Ziledars ; (3) 25% from amongst second grade clerks ; (4) 25% from amongst Tax Collectors, Revenue Collectors and Tax Moharrirs. 2. Rule 22 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1982, lays down the criterion for promotion as being the seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit. The power to appoint vested in the Administrator under Section 107 (3) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1954. The appointment had to be made in accordance with the recommendations of a Selection Committee, the constitution whereof is down in sub-section (4). 3. Under order dated June 27, 1976, the Administrator appointed, among others, Jainath Singh, Hari Prasad Singh. G. D. Pandey and Som Nath Pathak as Revenue Inspectors. Of these, Jainath Singh and Hari Prasad Singh were drawn from the category of Tax Collectors ; the other two were promotees from the rank of the second grade clerks. Their appointment was challenged by certain persons in the form of reference made to the Public Services Tribunal. The decision by the Tribunal was given on December 19, 1977. The Tribunal found that the selection was faulty because the basis adopted has been merit and not seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit. The operative portion of the decision recorded by the Tribunal provided : - "Both the References No. 807 and 922 of 1976 are partly allowed. The order dated 26-6-1976 is quashed to this extent only that respondent No. 1 (the Administrator) shall consider the case of each of the petitioners in two references along with other departmental candidates of different categories the light of observations made in this judgment." 4. On December 23, 1977, in purported implementation of the decision of the Public Services Tribunal, the Administrator Nagar Mahapalika directed immediate reversion of Jainath Singh, Hari Prasad Singh, G. D. Pandey and Som Nath Pathak the petitioners before us. On December 23, 1977, in purported implementation of the decision of the Public Services Tribunal, the Administrator Nagar Mahapalika directed immediate reversion of Jainath Singh, Hari Prasad Singh, G. D. Pandey and Som Nath Pathak the petitioners before us. Aggrieved G. D. Pandey, Jainath Singh and Hari Prasad Singh filed writ petitions in this Court, which were decided by one of us (B.D. Agarwal, J.) on August 2, 1983. The decision of the Tribunal, to the effect that the criterion adopted for purposes of selection was faulty inasmuch as the Administrator proceeded upon merit exclusively, where it should have been seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit, was upheld. It was pointed, however, that while reconsideration had to proceed in the light of the decision given by the Tribunal, the revision of the petitioners, while the selection was under reconsideration, was uncalled for. Accordingly this Court directed that the case of G. D. Pandey, Jainath Singh and Hari Prasad Singh shall be reconsidered by the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, according to law on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit for recruitment as Revenue Inspectors by promotion and that the reconsideration could go on while these petitioners continue in service in their respective categories. 5. Meanwhile the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 1983, which amend the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966, came into force on May 3, 1983. The Rules, 1983 place the Revenue Services of the Nagar Mahapalika in the category of Centralised Services ; earlier under the 1966 Rules the Revenue Services were not included among the Services. The Administrator wrote to the centralised Director of Local Bodies, U.P. On December 10, 1985, drawing his attention to the Rule, 1983 and seeking advice as to how was the decision of the Tribunal this Court to be implemented in the light thereof. The Director of Local Bodies replied on January 19, 1986, that the Administrator may seek legal opinion and proceed accordingly. The Administrator, it appears, sought legal opinion and held the selection of the criterion of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. Consequent thereto the petitioners before us were reverted to their respective ranks by order of the Administrator dated February 7, 1986. 6. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, which, with the consent of counsel on both the sides, were heard together. 7. Consequent thereto the petitioners before us were reverted to their respective ranks by order of the Administrator dated February 7, 1986. 6. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, which, with the consent of counsel on both the sides, were heard together. 7. Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged that the 1983 Rules, which came into force on May 3, 1983, have the effect to deprive the power of the jurisdiction which the Administrator earlier had in this behalf. Under these Rules the submission is the power to appoint Revenue Inspectors has come to be vested in the Director of Local Bodies, U.P. But since the selection was done and the consequent order for reversion passed by the Administrator, it is void in the eye of law. This has been countered by Sri G.C. Dwivedi and Sri R.C. Srivastava, appearing on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika or the respondents, appointed as Revenue Inspectors against the Vacancies caused upon the reversion of the petitioners, by contending that in the facts and circumstances hereof the selection would be governed by the provisions contained in the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamavali, 1962, read with the order, 1963 and the reversion is consequently within the powers of the Administrator. We find that the contention haired for the petitioners in this connection may not be sustained. 8. As mentioned above, the posts of the Revenue Inspectors were placed in the Revenue Services of the Nagar Mahapalika. The sources of the recruitment thereto were enumerated in the Schedule to the order, 1963, which we have already referred to above. In accordance therewith 75% were to come in through the promotion from different categories and to the extent of 25% the recruitment of Revenue Inspectors was to be from the open market. The vacancies arose in 1976 ; the selection had taken place on June, 26, 1976. The infirmity which the Public Services Tribunal noticed in the Selection this mode was that the criterion which .should have been applied, according to Rule 22 in the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamavali, 1962, was seniority subject to the rejection of unfit but the Administrator had proceeded on the basis of merit. The Tribunal, under its order dated December 19, 1977, passed before the enforcement of the Rules, 1983, set aside the selection on this ground alone and directed reconsideration. The Tribunal, under its order dated December 19, 1977, passed before the enforcement of the Rules, 1983, set aside the selection on this ground alone and directed reconsideration. That decision was upheld by this court on August 2, 1983. All that this court interfered with was that the reversion, which the Administrator has directed on December 23, 1977, assuming that this was so required for purposes of implementing the decision of the Tribunal, was set aside. This means in other words that in terms of order of the Tribunal dated December 19, 1977, affirmed by this court the reconsideration was to be done by the Administrator in the light of the provisions contained in the 1962 Niyamawali read with the 1963 order, which were applicable during the relevant period and this decision has attained finality. The process of the selection has been set in motion far back in 1976 to fill in the vacancies, which then existed, and this had to be done according to the decision of the Tribunal and this Court keeping in view of those relevant provisions. 9. Prior to May 3, 1983, as mentioned, the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966, did not cover the Revenue Services. This class was included in the Centralised Services for first time by the Rules, 1983. The U.P. Palika Revenue (Subordinate) Service covers, according to Rule 3 (as amended), inter alia the following (vii) Revenue/Tax Inspector of Mahapalikas ; (viii) Tax Superintendents of Class III Municipal Boards ; (ix) The Superintendents of Class III Municipal Boards ; (x) Revenue/Tax Inspectors of Class I and Class II Municipal Boards ; (xi) Revenue/Tax Inspectors of Class II Municipal Boards. Rule 20 of the Palika (Centralised) Services Rule, 1966 provides : - "For purpose of recruitment by promotion, selection on the basis of inter se seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit shall be made in consultation with the Commission from amongst all eligible officers of the lower grade of mere centralised services, and a list of officers prepared." 9. The noticeable feature is that in a case governed under the 1983 Rule the promotion of Revenue Inspectors would have to be from categories referred to above i.e. (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi) these being the next lower grades to the Revenue/Tax Inspectors of Mahapalikas. The noticeable feature is that in a case governed under the 1983 Rule the promotion of Revenue Inspectors would have to be from categories referred to above i.e. (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi) these being the next lower grades to the Revenue/Tax Inspectors of Mahapalikas. But a comparison of these categories with the sources for promotion specified in the Schedule to Order 1963 (enumerated above) would clearly show that these are not identical. The sources laid down for promotion in keeping with 1983 Rule do not cover the II Cl. clerks, the Amins or the Ziledars. Secondly in enforcing the 1983 Fables with the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966 there would need be consultation made with the Public Service Commission which is not envisaged under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamavali, 1962 or the Order 1963 The entire basis of the petitioners' case has been that they were in the field of eligibility in the light of 1962 Niyamavali read with the Order, 1963 and that can be consistent only with the selection taking place in tin - light of the provisions which were applicable and relevant at the time w hen the selection initially took place to fill in the vacancies occurring in 1976. 10. Sri R. C. Srivastava then also rightly submitted, in our opinion, that the Centralised Services Rules might be invoked on the occurrence of substantive vacancies on or after May 3, 198 j. This follows from Rule 21(2) of the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966, which opens with the words "on the occurrence of substantive vacancies". On reading the 1983 Rules, which amend the Rules 1966, if should be clear that these are made applicable to cases of substantive vacancies, which arise on or after. May 3, 1983 the date when the 1983 Rules came into force. The case before us being of vacancies arising in 1976, on this ground also it may be legitimately maintained that the selection had to take place in the light of the provisions earlier in force. It is not a case where it could be said that the filling of the pre-existing vacancies under the rules would amount to retroactive operation of the rules because the use of the "words on the occurrence of substantive vacancies" exclude the application of the rules to vacancies already existing prior to the commencement of the rules. It is not a case where it could be said that the filling of the pre-existing vacancies under the rules would amount to retroactive operation of the rules because the use of the "words on the occurrence of substantive vacancies" exclude the application of the rules to vacancies already existing prior to the commencement of the rules. Giving any other interpretation to this provision will amount to give retrospective effect to the application of the rule for which there is no warrant in our opinion. We also find support for this view from the observation made by another Division Bench in Sultan Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1983 AWC 86 at page 92. The question is not of a change of forum such but of the power or jurisdiction exercise able substantively in the matter of making the appointment of the selection by promotion to the posts of Revenue Inspectors. 11. Sri G.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel arguing in opposition to the petition filed by Somnath Pathak, submitted also that this petitioner had earlier filed writ petition No. 4442 of 1986 in this Court against the same order of reversion passed by the Administrator dated February 7, 1986. This was dismissed as not pressed for the petitioner on March 3, 1986, since it was stated on petitioners's behalf that he would pursue the matter in the form of representation to the Administrator. The argument is that on this account the petitioner is debarred from filing the petition over again. A representation, it appears, was made by the petitioner on October 1, 1986, which is pending decision before the Administrator still. Since there has been no decision given on the representation a cause of action may be said to have arisen to the petitioner and it would not be right to preclude him from agitating on merits consequently at this stage. 12. Consideration being had, however, to the merits, as discussed above, we find that the reversion directed by the Administrator on February 7, 1986, was not beyond his powers or jurisdiction which is the sole issue agitated for the petitioner and to which we confine ourselves in these petitions. The petitions are consequently dismissed with no orders, however, as to costs. Consideration being had, however, to the merits, as discussed above, we find that the reversion directed by the Administrator on February 7, 1986, was not beyond his powers or jurisdiction which is the sole issue agitated for the petitioner and to which we confine ourselves in these petitions. The petitions are consequently dismissed with no orders, however, as to costs. The interim order dated November 10, 1986, in Writ Petition No. 4215 of 1986, Jainth Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another and the interim order dated September 17, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 14472 of 1986, G.D. Pandey v. Director of Local Bodies and others, are vacated.