Judgment-

NATARAJAN

( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in W. A. No. 493 of 1983 affirming the dismissal of W. P. No. 119 of 1983 filed by the appellant. In the said writ petition the appellant challenged an order dated 15-12-82 of the Government of Karnataka rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by him regarding the fixation of his seniority in the cadre of "labour Inspectors" with effect from 21-12-1967 on which date his services as a "local-candidate" came to be regularised under the Karnataka Civil Services (Recruitment of Local Candidates to Class III Posts) Rules,. 1966 ("regularisation Rules" for short ). The appellants grievance is that his seniority should have been reckoned from the date of his temporary appointment viz. 17-10-1960 and that too in a post equivalent to that of Assistant Inspector of Labour in the Madras State Service. The appellant, who appears to have been appearing in person in all his earlier cases, appeared in person before us too and argued his appeal.

( 2 ) FOLLOWING a communication from the Labour Commissioner, Bangalore, the Inspector of Factories, Bangalore issued an order of appointment to the appellant on 14-10-60 appointing him "tentatively as Assistant Inspector of Labour, Udipi" on a temporary basis on a pay of Rs. 80 p. m. in the scale of Rs. 80-200. The order of appointment was in the following terms :

"pending filling up of the post of Asst. Inspector of Labour, Udipi as per P. S. C. Rules, Shri Varadha Rao, B. is appointed tentatively as Assistant Inspector of Labour, Udipi on a pay of Rs. 80 p. m. in the scale of Rs. 80-200 plus D. A.

2. His appointment is purely temporary until further orders and subject to termination without assigning any reason therefor. . . . . .

( 3 ) THE appellant was treated as a Local-candidate and his services were regularised in the cadre of "labour Inspectors" with effect from 21-10-1967 in accordance with the "regularisation Rules". Ever since the regularisation, it is the admitted position, the appellant was assigned the duties of Labour Inspector and he was also discharging them as such till 1-3-1982 when he was promoted as "senior Labour Inspector".

( 4 ) A gradation list of Labour Inspectors was published on 30-7-1981 pursuant to the review of promotions under "the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973 in which the appellants seniority was reckoned from 21-10-1967 (the date of his regularisation), in the cadre of Labour Inspector, and he was assigned the rank of 99 in the seniority list. Disputing the seniority assigned to him, the appellant preferred an appeal under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and contended that his seniority should be reckoned from the date of his assuming office i. e. 17-10-1960 and furthermore he should have been categorised in a higher post equivalent to Assistent Inspector of Labour (Madras State Service) instead of "labour Inspector" - (Mysore State Service ). The Government held the contentions were untenable and dismissed the appeal and this led to the appellant filing W. P. No. 119 of 1983. His contention in the writ petition and the writ appeal as well as in this appeal before us is that the fixation of his seniority on the basis that his initial appointment was as a "local-candidate" is erroneous and secondly, at all events his appointment was to one of the posts of "assistant Inspector of Labour" transferred from the erstwhile State of Madras to the State of Mysore at the time of reorganisation of States and as such the regularisation of his services in 1967 should have been in a higher category post instead of the category of Labour Inspector.

( 5 ) THE grounds on which the appellant rests his case for a higher seniority may be set out as below. When the New State of Mysore came into existence on 1-11-1956 following the re-organisation of States, three