Advocates:
G.S.CHATTERJEE, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.V.Gupta

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which held that the preparation of provisional gradation lists and the final list published by the State Government under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, were illegal and ultra vires. (!)
• The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, created a new State of Madhya Pradesh by merging territories from existing states like Madhya Bharat, Bhopal, and Vindhya Pradesh. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Section 115 of the Act deals with provisions relating to other services, mandating that the Central Government determine the successor State to which officers shall be finally allotted. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Section 115(5) empowers the Central Government to establish Advisory Committees to assist in the division and integration of services and ensure fair treatment. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Section 117 empowers the Central Government to give directions to State Governments regarding the integration of services, which the State Government must comply with. (!) (!)
• General principles for determining the equation of posts and relative seniority were agreed upon in a meeting of Chief Secretaries, focusing on factors like nature of duties, qualifications, salary, and length of continuous service in the equated grade. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• The Central Government constituted a Central Advisory Committee under Section 115(5) to advise on the integration of gazetted cadres. (!)
• The State Government prepared a provisional gradation list, invited representations, and sent them to the Central Government for consideration. (!)
• The Central Government directed the State Government to prepare a final common gradation list following specific procedures, including prefixing a preamble and ensuring representations were decided in consultation with the Advisory Committee. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• The Central Government issued further directions regarding the basis for determining seniority (continuous service in the equated grade) and specific modifications for officers from certain regions. (!)
• The High Court quashed the final gradation list, alleging improper delegation of powers by the Central Government and violation of Section 115(5). (!) (!)
• The Supreme Court held that even if integration power was exclusively with the Central Government, the State Government's role in preparing lists under Central direction and sanction did not amount to an improper delegation of essential functions. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• The Court cited precedents stating that a statutory functionary can obtain material through officials and that the ultimate responsibility remains with the authority, meaning the maxim "delegatus non potest delegare" does not apply if substantial control is retained. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• The Court found that while one opportunity for representation against a preliminary list is usually sufficient, the specific circumstances here required an opportunity for representation regarding two specific points concerning the inter se-seniority list of Mahakoshal officers and the principle of "kicking down" used in the final list. (!)
• Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the final gradation list dated April 6, 1962, was ultra vires and illegal only to the extent of category 6 (regarding the two specific points), and directed the Central Government to give an opportunity for representation on these matters. (!) (!)