GOVINDAN NAIR. J. :- The petitioner in each of these Writ Petitions was a member of the Madras State Judicial Service on 81-10-1956 the day prior to the "appointed day" for the purposes of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and they have all been allotted by orders passed by the Central Government under Sections 115 (2) and 115(3) of the Act to the Kerala State. The petitions in one form or other challenge the principles adopted in the integration of the petitioners with their compeers in the former State of Travancore-Cochin, and these petitions were heard together.

2. The Act is a law passed by Parliament under the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Constitution of India and inter alia contains supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions relating to the integration of the personnel who are to form the members of the services in the newly formed States. Kerala is a new Part A State comprising the territories mentioned in Section 5 of the Act; the territories of the existing State of Travancore-Cochin, excluding the territories transferred to the State of Madras by Section 4 of the Act; the territories comprised in Malabar district excluding the islands of Laccadive and Minicoy: and Kasarged taluk of South Kanara district. The petitioners were all serving in relation to the affairs of the State of Madras and were working in the Malabar district of the State on 31-10-56. But for a provisional order under sub-section (2) of Section 115, they would have continued to serve in connection with the affairs of the principal successor State to the Madras State, which is Madras State itself as defined in Section 2(m) of the Act Orders were however passed under sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Act by the Central Government requiring the petitioners to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the Kerala State. Orders have also been passed under sub-section (3) of Section 115 of the Act determining Kerala State as the successor State to which the petitioners should be finally allotted and fixing 1-11-56 as the date from which such allotment should take effect These orders need not detain us as the allotment of the petitioners to the State of Kerala, though against the wishes of the petitioners, is not impugned in these petitions. What is challenged in these writ petitions, as indicated earlier, is the method of integration of the petitioners with the Travancore-Cochin personnel.

Very briefly stated the complaint is that there has not been fair and equitable treatment of the petitioners in the matter of integrating them with the Travancore-Cochin personnel. This has been elaborated with reference to the various orders of integration, the provisions of the Act, the principles adopted in the matter of integration, alleged omission to implement the settled principles and orders, and it is even alleged that the settled principles and orders have been misapplied. These will be dealt with when considering the points raised in these petitions.

3. We propose to deal with these petitions by taking up first O. P. No. 2591 of 1966, next O. P. No. 2078 of 1966 and thereafter O. P. Nos. 2600 and 2979 of 1966 as they raise similar, if not common questions; O. P. Nos. 2303, 2709 and 3057 of 1966, also together, as the points raised therein are similar.

O. P. No. 2591 of 1966

4. The contention raised in this writ petition is that respondents 4 to 21 who were holding the posts of Judicial Officers in the State of Travancore-Cochin on 31-10-l956 and who were integrated with the petitioner were not judicial officers duly appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and that therefore they should not have been integrated with the petitioner and other persons allotted to Kerala State from the State of Madras. In dealing with this question, we will be referring to the parties as they are arrayed in this original petition as also to the exhibits in this original petit