JUDGMENT

SEN, J.:— After, hearing learned counsel for the parties, we had by our order dated October 11, 1985 dismissed these appeals. We now proceed to give the reasons therefor.

2. These appeals by special leave directed against the judgments and orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated September 9, 1983 and December 16, 1983 raise a question as to whether a member of the State Civil Service (Executive) on his temporary appointment by the State Government under R. 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 for a period exceeding six months, is entitled to have his continuous period of officiation in a senior post, to be taken into account in reckoning the year of allotment under R. 3(3)(b) of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. That depends on whether prior approval of the Central Government or the Union Public Service Commission to such appointment under sub-r. (2) of R. 9 of the Cadre Rules for the appointment of a non-cadre officer to a cadre post by the State Government is a condition precedent for a valid appointment under R. 9 of the Cadre Rules. Further, the question is whether the existence of a vacancy in the cadre strength of promotees, i.e. overutilization of the State Deputation Reserve Quota is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration in determining the period of continuous officiation in a senior post on the cadre till the Central Government accords its approval to such appointment under R. 9 of the Cadre Rules in assigning the year of allotment under R. 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules.

3. Facts in these cases ate more or less similar. It will suffice for our purposes first to state the facts in K. L. Jains case. The respondent was a substantive member of the State Civil Service (Executive) in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was on November 7, 1975 temporarily appointed by the State Government to the post of a Collector which is a senior post on the cadre under R. 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and had been continuously officiating on such post w. e. f. November 10, 1975 till the Central Government accorded its approval an October 1, 1976, for his appointment in the Indian Administrative Service. The promotion quota of non-cadre officers to cadre posts was 50 prior to October 1, 1976 but was on that date increased to 56. The respondent was formally appointed to the Indian Administrative Service by the Central Government on December 7,1976. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh by letter dated February 3, 1979 informed the respondent that he was assigned 1972 as the year of allotment by the Central Government. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ, direction or order, directing that he should instead be assigned 1971 as his year of allotment under R. 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules and his seniority should be fixed on that basis, and that on refixation of his seniority, he be allowed the consequential reliefs to which he may be entitled.

4. The appellant contested the respondents claim on three grounds, namely : (i) he was not entitled to count his continuous officiation in the senior post of Collector from November 10, 1975 as his appointment to such post in the cadre was not approved by the Central Government till October 1, 1976 i.e., for any period prior to October 1, 1976; (ii) there was no vacancy in the cadre strength of promotees for any period prior to October 1, 1976 and therefore the appointment of the respondent to the post of Collector for the period from November 10, 1975 to September 30, 1976 had to be ignored; and (iii) there was over-utilization of the State Deputation Reserve Quota and for this reason also his continuous officiation on the senior post of a .Collector could not be taken into account.

5. G. P. Singh. C. J. speaking for himself and Faizanuddin, J. in K. L. Jain v. Union of India, 1984 M. P. L. J. 284