J.C.Shah, J. - (1.) These three appeals arise out of orders passed by the High Court of Mysore in petitions filed by the respondents who are employees of the State of Mysore in the Agricultural Department. By the petitions the High Court was requested to order that the Notification No. AF 203 AGO 66 (5) to 1726 INS 65 dated May 17, 1966 be quashed. When the writ petitions came up for hearing it was found that the Central Government had issued a notification under section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act 1956, fixing the seniority of officers in the Agricultural Department in the State of Mysore. The High Court proceeded to direct that the State Government do review the promotions of officers whose promotion was challenged in each of the cases and to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion and if necessary to assign them the deemed dates of promotion and to give them promotion to which they would be entitled after such review and further to give them the consequential benefits. It is not in dispute that under the final list prepared by the Central Government the petitioners in the three writ petitions occupied ranks 59, 73 and 99 whereas some of the respondents who were given promotion were occupying lower ranks. The States Government was bound to give effect to the notification of the central Government fixing the seniority of officers under section 115 (5) of the State Re-organisation Act and to readjust the seniority of the various officers in the Agricultural Department and to consider them for promotion in the light of that re-adjustment. The High Court was prima facie right in acceding to the request and ordering that promotion previously made should be reviewed by the State of Mysore.
(2.) Mr. Chagla, appearing on behalf of the State of Mysore, in the first instance contends that the High court was incompetent to direct that promotions be given to the petitioners in the three writ petitions. A reasonable meaning of the order is that the High Court has merely directed that the State should consider the three petitioners for promotion and has not directed that they should be promoted.
(3.) Mr. Chagla then contended that the notification issued by the Central Government under section 115 (5) of the States Re-organisation Act is not final, it being merely a proposal by the Central Government which has to be made final after hearing objections of the officers concerned. No such objection was raised before the High Court, and we are unable to hold on the materials placed before us that the notification of the Central Government relied upon by the High Court is a provisional notification and is not a final notification.;