JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:— The only question raised in this appeal relates to the seniority of one of two groups of candidates in the Karnataka State. We must make it perfectly plain that we are concerned only with the specific rules placed before us and limit the operation of our observations to these rules and orders - no wider import or impact is available nor do we intend to affect other States and other services governed by other systems or rules.

2. The Karnataka State, on States Reorganisation, was composed of various territories drawn from various former States including what is known as the old Mysore State. May Government servants from those States were allotted to the Karnataka State on 1-11-56, the date of the State Reorganisation. There was a gradation list prepared in regard to the allottees coming from various former States, and the Central Government, acting under its power under S. 115 (7), sanctioned a final gradation list for the Karnataka State also. As per that list, the employees already regularized before 1-11-56 were put above temporary servants for the obvious reason that temporary hands would take their place below the regular hands. Nevertheless, those temporary hands were also included in the gradation list of the Karnataka State, because they had rendered continuous service, although on an officiating basis.

3. Subsequently, new appointments were made to the services by the Karnataka State and those appointees, who came by recruitment through the Public Service Commission, were undoubtedly regular hands. The question arose whether those subsequent recruits, coming into the Public Services after 1-11-56, could claim seniority over those who had been included in the gradation list as on 1-11-56. The Government passed an order dated 22nd September, 1961, the material part of which runs thus:

"2 (i). All appointments to Class-III Direct recruitment posts made by the local appointing authorities, both in the old Mysore area (including Bellary District) and in the other integrated areas up to 31st December, 1959 (inclusive) may be regularised subject to the condition that the candidates were within the prescribed age limits and had the requisite qualification at the time of their initial appointment.

(ii) The services of local candidates shall be regularised with effect from the date of their appointment from which their service is continuous provided they were in service on 1st January 1960 and continued to be in service at the time their services are regularised;

(iii) The local service will count for purposes of leave, pension and increments subjects to the relevant provisions of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, but not for purposes of seniority; only the service from the date of regularisation of their appointments in the particular department will count for seniority; and

(iv) Breaks in service will not be condoned even if such breaks are only for short periods,"

4. The construction of this rule regulating seniority is important for the decision of this case. It is apparent from R.2(ii) that the services of local candidates (by this expression is meant "servants of the old Mysore State") shall be regularised with effect from the date of their appointment subject to three conditions. Continuous service was one condition. The condition was that they should be in service on the 1st of January, 1960 and the third that their service must continue right up to the time of regularisation. When these three conditions were fulfilled, regularisation was the result. However, the State by its order of September, 1961 made a qualification in regard to the length of service for purposes of seniority. For all purchases except for purposes of seniority, the entire "local service" was to be counted, but so far as seniority was concerned, service was to be reckoned only from the date of regularisation of their appointment in the particular department. Broken service for short periods was, of course, to be condoned.

5. The cr