The controversy relates to the interpretation of clause (b) of sub section (2) of section 133 of the Constitution which, when read with the other connected provisions, provides as follows. "133 (2) The Commission shall be consulted (a) . . . (b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers; (c). . . and it shall be the duty of the Commission to advise on any matter so referred to them or on any other matter which the Governor may refer to them: Provided that the Governor may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally or in any particular class of cases or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted." Although it has been urged in the written arguments of the appellant that section 133(2) (b) was "not at all attracted in the matters of making promotions in the same service", and its true and correct interpretation would be that "it is applicable only to 'making promotions and transfers from one service to another '," learned Attorney General has, with his usual candour and fairness, stated that he does not find it possible to support that contention.