Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, J.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dismissing the Petitioner from service and for the issuance of an appropriate writ and direction for a declaration that the dismissal be deemed null and void and that the Petitioner be deemed to be in service.

According to the Petitioner, he was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Police in the former Holker State on January 1, 1937, under orders of the Government of His Highness the Maharaja Holker. On the formation of Madhya Bharat, his services continued and he was absorbed in the Madhya Bharat State under orders of the Inspector-General of Police contained in the notification published in the Madhya Bharat Police Gazette, dated August 31, 1950. On March 16, 1955, he was served with a charge-sheet by the District Superintendent of Police, Dewas and was suspended with effect from that date. After inquiry and giving him a notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Madhya Bharat, Ujjain, by his order dated June 21, 1955, dismissed him from service. He preferred an appeal to the Inspector-General of Police, then a revision to the Government of Madhya Bharat and lastly, a review to that Government but all in vain. The order of dismissal is assailed on grounds that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police could not dismiss the Petitioner and in doing so, he transgressed the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution, and secondly, that the Petitioner had no reasonable opportunity to satisfy the authorities concerned that his past record was not bad.

In the return filed by the State Government, it has been averred that the service of the Petitioner in the Madhya Bharat State was on a temporary and provisional basis, and it was denied that his appointment was ever made by the Inspector-General of Police. It has also been explained in the Return that a mention of the past record in the order of dismissal was only incidental.

Shri Chitale, learned Counsel for the Petitioner first contends that the Petitioner's original appointment having been made by the Government of Maharaja Holker, he could not be dismissed by any authority subordinate to the Government. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ramchandra Gopalrao's case 1957 MPLJ 437 : AIR 1957 M.P. 126. In that case, it was held that a Sub-Inspector of Police who was originally appointed by the Ruler of Rat lam State but was not reappointed in the Madhya Bharat State after the merger of the Ratlam State in the new State, could only be removed by the Madhya Bharat Government and his dismissal by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was illegal.

That case was decided before the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajvi Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1958 SC 228. According to their Lordships' pronouncement,

When one State is absorbed in another, whether by accession, conquest, merger or integration, all contracts of services between the prior Government and its servants automatically terminate and thereafter those who elect to serve in the new State, and are taken on by it, serve on such terms and conditions as the new Stale may choose to impose.

Their Lordships have further held that this was nothing more, though on a more exalted scale, than an application of the principle that underlies the law of Master and Servant when there is a change of masters. Their Lordships have further held that the relevant Article (Article XVI) of the Covenant only guaranteed that the new conditions were not to be less advantageous than those on which the said person was serving on the date named in the Covenant.

After the above-cited decision of the Supreme Court, the decision of this Court in Ramchandra Gopalrao's case 1957 MPLJ 437 : AIR 1957 M.P. 126 is no more a good law. Thus, although the Petitioner had been appointed by the Government of Maharaja Holker on the format