JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law- (1) Whether the learned trial court and the learned first appellate court have usurped the jurisdiction not vested in them and have decided the service matter which exclusively falls in the domain of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976? (2) Whether the District Ayurvedic Officer, Bhilwara is incompetent to sanction senior grade of the Compounders to Compounder and Nurses Gr. II because sanction of senior grade in Group-B to Compounders and Nurses Gr.II in Group-C amounts to promotion according to the schedule attached to the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Subordinate Service Rules, 1966? 2-3. As regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the matter the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction because the matter squarely falls within the definition of service matters. The learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that since no order was passed cancelling the scale granted, no appeal could have been filed under Section 4 of the Appellate Tribunals Act. The lower courts have taken the view that since no appealable order was passed, it was not possible for the plaintiff to have filed an appeal before the Service Appellate Tribunals. Having gone through the record I also do not find any order specifically cancelling the order Ex.P/2 for the non compliance of which the suit has been filed. There is therefore no force in the contention that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.4. As regards the second substantial question of law, it was argued on behalf of the appellant State that the District Ayurvedic Officer, Bhilwara was not competent to sanction senior grade of the Compounders to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that since an order was passed by a Govt. Officer so long as it is not withdrawn or cancelled it has to be implemented and is binding on the Govt. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that since an order was passed by a Govt. Officer so long as it is not withdrawn or cancelled it has to be implemented and is binding on the Govt. He submits that it is an internal matter for the Govt, to see whether the Officer who passed the order had authority to do so or not and if the Govt, finds that the order was unauthorised it could have cancelled it or withdrawn it by separate order and in that event the plaintiff would have chance to challenge it before Service Appellate Tribunal or could have come up against that order on merits before a Civil Court.5. Having heard the learned counsel and having gone through the record, I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent. When the Govt, has not thought it fit to cancel or revoke the order even when according to it, it has been unauthorisedly passed by Distt. Ayurvedic Officer, the order cannot be wished away automatically and taken to have no force. When orders like these are passed, it is not for the beneficiaries of those orders to verify as to whether the Officer who has passed the order is authorised to pass such order or not. Such Officers work on behalf of the Govt, and they are for all purpose agents of the Govt. If something is unauthorisedly or wrongly done by an Officer of the State who is the agent of the State, unless his action is set at naught by issuing an order cancelling the order issued unauthorisedly, even such allegedly unauthorised order would have binding on the State. This is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction were a Rank-IIIIrd person, not concerned with the Department, has issued an order. There is nothing on record to show that District Ayurvedic Officer, Bhilwara is incompetent to sanction senior grade of the Compounders and Nurses Gr. II. There is no material on record as to who is authorised to do so on behalf of the Govt. In view of all this I find no force in the contention that the District Ayurvedic Officer was not authorised to pass the order. The appeal has no force. It is dismissed. II. There is no material on record as to who is authorised to do so on behalf of the Govt. In view of all this I find no force in the contention that the District Ayurvedic Officer was not authorised to pass the order. The appeal has no force. It is dismissed. The amount of difference is said to be deposited in the Saving Bank Account in the Post Officer pursuant to an order of this Court. The amount may now be released in favour of the respondent.Appeal Dismissed. *******