The Central Government retains jurisdiction to clarify promotion criteria and integrate service personnel post-reorganization, and the lack of personal hearings does not violate established principles of natural justice.

1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central Government and to the State Government of Andhra Pradesh (1) directing both the Governments not to take any action likely to prejudice the rights of the petitioners accruing from the decision taken by the Government of India contained in the letter No. 11/54/58 S.R. (s) dated 29th October 1959 and that taken by the State Government contained in G.O. Ms. No. 227 dated 31-1-1963 and (2) more particularly restraining the State Government from implementing the Central Government's decision permitting the Assistant Surgeons of erstwhile Hyderabad State to count their continuous service in the Health Wing prior to 1-11-1956 for purposes of promotion to the grade of Assistant Director of Public Health, Andhra Pradesh.

2. The petitioners are from the service personnel of the Public Health department of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the respondents 3 to 13, save for one, are from Medical and Health department of the erstwhile Hyderabad State. The controversy is the sequel of the process of division and integration of service personnel by reason of S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act as an inevitable consequence of the reorganisation of the States of the Union of India on linguistic basis in 1956. The main points raised in this proceeding are : Whether the power of the Central Government under Part X of the States Reorganisation Act is exhausted when once it has laid down the criteria for preparation of the integration or inter se seniority list and given direction to the State Government to prepare the list accordingly so that it may be said there it is left with no further power to deal with any matter arising therefrom either for solution or advice or for clarification. Further if it has still jurisdiction, is it incumbent on it to hear the parties before it could give any directions to the State Government ?

3. For a proper appreciation of the points in controversy it is necessary to state the facts somewhat in detail. By or under the provisions of S.3 of the State Reorganisation Act there were added to the State of Andhra from 1-11-1956 certain territories comprised in the specified districts of the erstwhile Hyderabad State and the State of Andhra with these added territory became known as the State of Andhra Pradesh. With the expansion of the territory, the question of the service personnel belonging to the added territory came to the forefront. The States Reorganisation Act made certain provisions in part X of the Act. Their provisional allotment was statutorily fixed by the said Act allowing the final allotment to be dealt with by the Central Government and continuance of officials in the same posts was ensured under the provisions of S. 116 subject to the limitations and conditions laid down therein. The Central Government was charged thus with the duty of dealing with allotment of service personnel, division and integration of services among the States including the State of Andhra Pradesh and of ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of S.115. This task is not obviously an easy one for service conditions in each State are not precisely the same. They are bound to vary largely having regard to the difference in historical background. For the purposes of this case we are concerned only with the health services in ei