Judgment

BEG, J. :- The judgment under appeal after certificate of fitness of the case under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India, is very short as it purports to follow the ratio decidendi of Union of India v. G. M. Shankariah, 1969 Serv LR 1 = (Civil Appeals Nos. 1439 and 1446 of 1967, decided on 16-10-1968) (SC), where this Court had held, upon a concession by the Attorney General, that a list prepared under Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was provisional. Therefore, it is was held that the writ petition was premature as the final list of officers on an integrated seniority list was still to be prepared after hearing objections.

2. The High Court of Mysore seems to have been under the misapprehension that the case now before us is also governed by what was held by this Court in Shankariahs case (1969 Serv LR 1) (SC) (supra) with reference to an entirely different and provisional list of Forest Officers. The case now before us pertains to Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services of the Mysore State in which the petitioner was given, in the final integration list, a position to which he objected. Apparently, the petitioner, whose date of birth is given as 28th June, 1915, has retired. He is a respondent who has not appeared before us, and, therefore, could not be heard by us. We have, however, gone through his petition and the affidavit filed in its support where, in paragraph 16, he states as follows :

"The Mysore State Civil Service Integration Rules 1950 provide for filing objections only against the preliminary provisional Inter-State Seniority List and do not provide any provision for filing objections or appealing against the final Inter-State Seniority List as per Annexure B. Thus we have no other legal remedies open to us for the redressal of our grievances and the abridgement of our fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, and, therefore, we are forced to approach this Honble Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction for the redressal."

3. It is apparent that the petitioner-respondent was claiming relief against the final Inter-State seniority list although he was given due opportunity to object to the provisional list. Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, who has looked up the departmental records, informs us that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to file his objections to the preliminary list.

4. Now, Shankariahs case (1969 Serv LR 1) (SC) (supra) was confined to an admission on behalf of the Central Government that the list before the Court was provisional so that the petitioners before the Court on that occasion were to get opportunities of putting forward their objections before the final list is prepared. In the case before us, the petitioner admits that the Mysore State Civil Services Integration Rules provided for filing of objections against the preliminary provisional Inter-State Seniority list. Presumably, he had that opportunity. Otherwise, he would, no doubt have objected that the rules had not been complied with, which he did not do. His grievance seemed to be that he was not heard after the final list was prepared. We are unable to appreciate this line of attack upon the final list.

5. We think that the concession in Shankariahs case (1969 Serv LR 1) (SC) (supra) was confined to the facts of that particular case. There the list was provisional. The most that could be urged, in the light of decisions of this Court, is that a person whose seniority is to be determined under Section 115 of the Act must be given an opportunity to object to the proposed assignment of a place to him in the seniority list. As already observed above, the petitioner had ample opportunity to do that. Hence, the principle recognised in Shankariahs case (supra) was not applicable to such a case.

6. The judgment of the Mysore High Court was, in our opinion, based on an apparent misunderstanding of Shankariahs case (1969 Serv LR 1) (SC) (supra) and on a failure