The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection provided under S.115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, which limits the power of executive orders to override statutory rules.

1. The case was referred to a Full Bench by a Division Bench of myself and Balagangadharan Nair J. as we doubted the correctness of the view taken by Mathew J. of this Court (as he then was) in O. P. 1846 of 1968 which was confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 949 of 1969.

2. The petitioner is an allotted Officer from the Madras State governed by the Madras Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, and entitled to protection under the proviso to S.115 (7) of the States Re-organisation Act, viz., his conditions of service shall not be varied to his prejudice or dis-advantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. He entered service on 1-8-1954 in the Malabar area of the Madras State, which, after reorganisation of States, became part of Kerala. Respondents 4 to 7 are also allotted Officers and members of the same service who joined prior to the petitioner. R.22 of the Madras Judicial Ministerial Services Rules provides:

"22. Test or examination to be passed before appointment. No person shall be eligible for appointment to the class and category and by the method specified in columns (1) and (2) of the table below unless he has passed the test or examination specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof. Table:#1

The petitioner had become test qualified on 6 31962 A post of Upper Division Clerk became vacant on 9 7 1963 and the petitioner was promoted to the said post. None among Respondents 4 to 7 were qualified. The Account Test specified in the Madras Rules was conducted in July 1963 and the results of the same were published on 12 111963. Respondents 5 and 7 had passed the test and Respondents 4 and 6 not. By Ex. P2 order dated 4 61973, the 2nd respondent the District Judge Kozhikode, placed the petitioner below Respondents 6 and 7. The petitioner filed Ex. P6 representation which was rejected by Ext. P7 order of the High Court on the ground of Exts. P4 and P5 G. Os- (to be noticed presently), and the judgments of the High Court in O. P. No. 1846/1968 and W. A. 949 of 1969. The petitioner's representation to the Government was rejected as not maintainable. The writ petition seeks to quash Exts. P2 and P7.

3. The petitioner's trouble started with Ext P3 G. O. dated 14-1-1963 (G. O. (P) No. 22 Public (Services-D) Department) which prescribed tests in Office procedure and Account Test Lower for the Ministerial Staff of the different Officers of the State Government. Para.2(d) and (3) of the G O. ran thus:

"2(d). Lower Division Clerks in the remaining offices except the High Court but including the Civil and Criminal Courts subordinate to the High Court and subordinate offices of the public relations Department should pass a test on the new Manual of Office procedure for use in offices other than Secretariat during the period of probation; and

(3). The penalty for not passing the tests in office procedure during the period of probation will be as indicated in R.19 (b) and 21 of Part-II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. In cases where probation has not already been prescribed, the persons concerned should be required to pass the tests within a period of two years, from the date of orders or from the date of appointment, whichever is later; Persons who on the date of issue of orders have either passed the Travancore-Cochin Secretariat Office Manual Test or have already secured promotion to the Upper Division or Grade I will not be required to pass the new test in Office Procedure."

The syllabus of the notified test was prescribed by Ext. P4 G.O. (P) No. 455/23rd October 1963. After noticing the test then being conducted for the Travancore-Cochin personnel and for the allotted Officers from Madras, it was ordered that the test then conducted by the Public Service Commission for the Officers of the former Travancore-Cochin State and those allotted from Madras "will be abolished" (Emphasis supplied). Clause.4 of Ext. P4 G.O. stated that candidates who have passed in one o