The length of continuous service determined seniority in the integrated service, and the question of whether a person's service in their parent State would count for seniority in the integrated service was deemed irrelevant.

1. By Court:-The petitioner in O. P. No. 7-P. C. Kunhikrishnan Nambiar and the petitioner in O. P. No. 459 - K. P. Radhakrishna Menon - are both Deputy Collectors in the service of the Kerala State. They were formerly Deputy Collectors in the Madras State and came to this State on its formation on 1st November 1956. Their main complaint, as it finally emerged at the hearing relates to their non-inclusion in the list of candidates eligible for selection to the Indian Administrative Service. The non-inclusion was on the ground that they did not possess the eight years' qualifying service required by regulation 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.

2. Both the petitioners had requested that their full service, including "temporary" service, as Deputy Collectors should be taken into account in the calculation of their qualifying service. (Temporary, in the special sense of the Madras rules, i. a ., service rendered on appointment under rule 10(a)(i)(1) of Part II of the Madras State and Subordinate Services Rules before the regularisation of that service under rule 23(a)). That request was rejected by the State Government by their memorandum No. 64977- (Special) 4 - 60 - 9 - PD dated 17th December 1962, a copy of which has been marked as Ext. P.5 in O.P. No. 7. The memorandum says:

"Sri P.C. Kunhikrishnan Nambiar and Sri K. P. Radhakrishna Menon have requested that their full service (including temporary service) as Deputy Collectors may be counted towards eligibility for selection to the I. A.S. Cadre. According to the decisions of the Govern-ment of India provisional and emergency service rendered by Travancore-Cochin or Madras personnel prior to 1st November 1956 should be taken into account for purposes of fixation of rank only if such service is regularised or if it is in a time-scale of pay and is reckoned for grant of increments and is continuous. The above decisions have been accepted by this Government-Vide G.O. MS. 290 Public (Integration) Department, dated 16th May 1962. In the circumstances the request of the petitioners cannot be granted".

3. The relevant portion of regulation 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, runs as follows:

"4. Conditions of eligibility for promotion : Each committee shall meet at intervals ordinarily not exceeding one year and consider the cases of all substantive members of the State Civil Service who on the first day of January of that year, had completed not less than eight years of service (whether officiating or substantive) in a post of Deputy Collector or any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the Government".

Both the petitioners had completed eight years of service (counting also their temporary service) in the post of Deputy Collector before the end of 1961 and were, by then, substantive members of the State Civil Service both having been confirmed on 1st November 1956. (It might be that the confirmation was ordered only later with effect from that day. The order of confirmation is not before us, nor is its date available from the record, and we are assuming that it was made before the end of 1961). It will be noticed that the regulation prescribes only two conditions for eligibility. First, the candidate concerned must be a substantive member of the State Civil Service, and, second, that on the first day of January of the year in question he must have completed not less than eight years of service in the post of Deputy Collector. All candidates satisfying these two conditions are entitled to consideration and no question of rank or seniority arises, although, in the actual selection for inclusion in the list of suitable candidates, seniority comes into play under regulation 5. If therefore the petitioners had satisfied these two conditions by the end of 1961 they were entitled to consideration in the selections made from 1962 onwards.

4. That the petitioners had satisf