r 7^T-H'C-22 ^_ '.zs' -s^ ^ipii^ra, 's^frOTs, 'NMIWP 3:!i*";'RI f^Ht^^'..3H^I "^Hl^ ~^^ .; W..?,,..,i(to.<...Al.4/20.92 289 311^1 TOffW^ftn qiN?ra>n ^nwf '•I T^-'i' Tf3R?T<: i7 sS^t S!K!{1 DB s HCW'BLE SHRI FAKHRUDfllIN AND HON'BLE SHRI L.C. BH^iDOO. JJ. £-12-2003 I CFders passed, read in open Oaurt, Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Sd/- , L.C.BHADOO Judge f--"•;', ^' ^a^^ 'E^t^ ~SY^rr ^\^^ 's^. ;:/ > '•1 n^ Ll_-y A.F.R, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH WWT^PETITION N0.414 OF 2002 ;.-^ "'r- ^.- '•- "t- Dilip Deshmuldi - Versus - ' State of Chliattisgarh and others AND WRITPETITION N0.1269 OF 2001 Dhamicndra Swaroop Jaiu - Versus - Union of India aad others POST FOR ORDER ON 6^ OF DECEMBER, 2003, Sd/- , L.C.BHADOO Judge ?^,^12-2003 -^,, \'/ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATimB AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH Writ Petitioa No.414 of 2002 PETITIONER: Dilip DcsluuLikli, S/o I^ate Rao Sahcb nesTimiikti, Aged about 54 yeara, District Judge, On deputation as Lcgal Advisor to the Govemor of Chhattisgarh, R/o Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) Versus "KESPONDENTS; &. 7. 8, State of Chhattisgarh, Throueh; Priiicipal Secretaiy, Department of Law aad Legislative Affairs, Maiitralaya, Raipur(C.G.) Thc High Couil of Chhattisgarh, BUaspiu-, Through: Registrar General. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative AfFairs, Vindhyachal, 1st Kloor, Bhopal (M.P.) The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Throueh: Registrar General. Union of India, Throueh: Secretary to the MiDistiy of Personnel, PubUc Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Trauiiag, Lok Nayak Bhavaa, 3ri Floor, Khan Market, NcwDclhi- 110003 Shri B.K. Shrivastava, Registrar Geiieral, High Court of Chliattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) ShriV.K. Shrivastava, District & Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) Shri Yogesh Mathur, Addl. Distdct & Sessions Judge Sakti, District: Bilaspur (C.G.) -7^8 9. Shri P.K. Dave, Addl. ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) 10. ShriG.L. Sonwani, ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Kawaidha, District: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 11. Shri K. Vmod Kujur, CivU Judge, Class-I, Dhamtan, Distt.; Raipur (C.G.) 12. Shri Dilesliwar Rafhia, Additional CivU Judge, Class-II, Si.u-ajpur, Distt. :Ambikapur-Surguja (CG) 5.b) Union of Indja, Through: Mmistiy of Law aad Justice, Goveminent of India, New DeUu. Present: - Mr. RajendraTiwari, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. P. Diwaker, Advocate: Mr. Sanjay K, Aganval, Deputy A.G.: Mr. Maiuudra Shrivastava, Advocate; Mr. Prashaat Mishra, Advocate: Mr. V.V.S. Murfhy, Addl. Central Govt Staitdiag Counscl: Mr. K.A. Ansari, Advocate: Mr. Malay Kuinar Bhaduri, Advocate: Mr. R.S. .Jaiswal, Advocate: For fhe petitioner For the State/respondent No. 1 For responden.ts 2 & 4 For respondent No.3 For rcspondcnts 5-a & 5-b For respondent No.6 For respondent No.7 For respondeTits 8 to 12 AND Writ Petitlon No.1269 of 2001 PETITIONER: Dhanncndia Swaroop Jaia, S/o Shri G.L. Jaiu, Aged about 59 years, District & Sessions Judge, Raipur(C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India, Throush: Secretanr, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances aad Pensioa, Deptt. of Personnel & Tramuig, Lok Nayak Bhavau, Khaa. Market, New DeUii. 2. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: Secretaiy, Miuistrv of Law & Legal Affau-s, VaUabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretaiy, Ministry of Law & Legal AfFairs, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, (C.G.) 4. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (M.P.) 5. Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bflaspur(C.G.) 6. Shri B.K. Shrivastava, Distnct & Sessions Judge, C/o Registrar, High Court of Chliattisgarh, BUaspur (C.G.) 7. ShriV.K. Sbrivastava, District & Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) Prcscnt; - Mr, H.N. Vyas, Advocate: Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Addl. Central Govt. Staadixig Counsel; Mr. Prashaat Mishra, Advocate: Mr. Saajay K. Agrawal, Dy. A.G.: Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, Advocate: Mr. K.A. Ansari, Advocate: Mr. Malav Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate: For the petitioner For respondent No. 1 For respondent No.2 For the State/respondent No.3 For respondents 4 & 5 For respondent No.6 For resnondeat No.7 Before: Hoa'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo, J. lc(tl^ Q^RDER (Passcd on fc-t^" Dcccmbcr, 2003) The foUowine order of fhe Court was passed by Justice L.C. Bhadoo: - '. By this writ pctition (W.P.No.414 of 2002) under Arttdes 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Mr. Dilip Deshiaukh, District & Sessions Judge (Super Tune Pay Scale), Iias chaUenged ftie order dated 07.06.2001 passed by the Union of India ordering provisional atlocatiou of respondeut No.6 Mr. B.K. Shrivastava, Distri.et & Sessions Judge, Rewa (M.P.) retrospectively w.e.f. 01.11.2000 to the Ste.tc of Chliattisgarh under Section 68 (1) ofthe Madhya Pradesh Reoi^aaisation Act, 2000, and also the order dated 07.12.2001 passed by the Union of India by which under the Above Super Tune Scale categoiy, respondents 6 & 7 nainely, Mr. B.K. Shrivastava & Mr. V.K. Shrivastava, respectively, have been aUocated finally to ftie State ofChIiamsgarhw.e.f. 01.11.2000. 2. Similarty, by writ petition No, 1269 of 2001 under Articles 226 & 227 of fhe Constitution of Indla, petitioner Mr. Dhanaeudra Swaroop Jaui, District & Sessions Judge, Raipur, ttas chaUenged the provisional allocation of Mr. B.K, Shrivaslava, District & Sessions Judge, Rewa (M.P.), vide order dated 07.06.2001 passed by the Union of India under Section 68 (1) offhe M.P. Reorgaiusatiou Act, 2000 aud iilsu tkc fiual atlocatiou ofabovc Iwo OIIicci-s i.c. Mr. B.K. Shrivaslava aad Mr. V.K. Shrivastava. -u. Siacc, in bofh thcsc writ pctitions, samc qucstion of law is involvcd aad also same aUocation orders are chaUenged, they are beiag disposed of by this conuaon order. 4. At fhe tune of fhe provisional aUocation botfa thc petitioncrs wcre worfcmg iu the cadre of District & Sessions Judge in Super Time Scale, whereas, bofh the respondents (respondents 6 & 7) werc working in fhe cadre of District & Sessions Judge in. Above Super Time Pay Scale, Facts leading to filuig of these writ petitions are that fhe Goverument of India decided to bifurcate the State of Madhya Pradesh into two States i.e. Madhya Pradesh and Chliatdsgarh, accordiagly a BUl was laid before fhe Parliament^ T3/ uiider the enabUag power of Articles 2, 3 &4 of the Constitution of India. Rclcvant parts of Articlcs 2, 3 & 4of thc Constitution of India, which are relevaut in these cases are reproduced below: - 2. Adaaissloa or establislunent of aew States..— Parltament may by law adinit iuto the Union, or estabUsh, new States on such tenns aad conditions as it tfaiiiks fit. 3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or nanies of ejristtatg 8tates..—Parliataeiit inay by law— (a) form a ncw Stetc by separation oftcmtory fmm any State or by uniting two or ruore States or parts of States or by unitmg any territoiy to a part of any State; (b) iacrease the area ofany State; [E.xpluriutiunI.—Iiithis arUclc, iu clauscs (a) lu (c), "Stalc iacludes a Urdon temtoiy, but in the proviso, "State" does not iuclude a Union temtoiy. Explanation ff—Thepower conferred on Parliainent by clause (a) includes fhe power to form a new State or Union territoiy by unituig a part of auy State or Union temtoiy to auy other State or Union territoiy.j 4. Laws made uader Articles 2 and 3 to provlde for the ainendment of the Rrst and the Fourth Schedales aad supplemeatal, lacldental and coasequeatial mattea's.—(1) Any law referrcd to in Ardcle 2 or Article 3 shatt contam such provisions for the amendment of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessaiy to give eflFect to the provisions of the law and may also contam such supplemental, uicideutal and consequential provisions (uicludiug provisions as to representation ia Parliament aud in the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States affected by such law) as ParUament inay deem. necessaiy. (2) No sucli ]aw as atbresaid shall be deenied to be aa amendment of ttus Coastitution for the purposes of Article 368. 5. The ParUament resolved to bifurcate fhe State of Madhya Pradesh as mentkined above and in pursuance of fhat, Act No.28 of 2000 i.e. fhe Madhya Pradesh Reoi^anisation Act, 2000, was enacted by fhe ParUament for providmg the territories of fhe two States and to inake fhe necessary suppleiaental, incidental aad consequential provisions relatmg to representation in Parliainent aud iu fhe State Asseiublies, distribution of revenues, apportionment of assets and </>-- 6 liabitities, niatiageineu.t and developiaent of water resources and othcr mattcrs. la Part-LV of fhis Act (No.28 of 2000) a provision was inade regardnig H^h Court and ia F^rt-VIII Provisions as to services were niade. Relevaat Sections 68, 69, 71 and 72 read as under: - 68. Pro^sions relating to servlces in Madhya n-adesh aad ChhattisgEU'h.—(l)Eveiy person who iminediately before fhe appoiuted day is semng in connection with the affairs of fhe existing State of Madhya Pradesh shaU, on and finni that day provisionalty contfaiue to serve in connection wittt the afitairs ot' the State of Madhva Pradesh ualess he is required, by general or special order of the Central Govenuneut to serve provisionaUy ia coiuiection with fhe affau-s of the State of Cfaliattisgarh: Provided that no direction shaU be issued under this section after the expuy of a period of one year fiom. the appointed day. (2) As soon as may be after the appoiated day, the C^ntral Goverum.eut shatl, by general or special onder, detei'iniae the successor State to which eveiy person referred to in sub-section (1) sbatl be finalty allotted for service and fhe date wifh effect from which such aUotment shall take cffcct or bc dccincd to havc takcn cffcct. (3) Every person who is finaUy aflotted under fhe provisions of sub-section (2) to a successor State shaU, if he is not already serviag fherein be niade available for . serviag in fhe successor State frovi such date as m.ay be agreed upon between fhe Goveruments concemed or in default of such ^reeinent, as inay be detemuned by fhe Ccntral Govenunent. 69. Provlsions relating to other servlces.—(1) Nothing in ttus sectiou or section 68 shaU be deemed to affect on or after fhe appoiated day fhe operation of fhe provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determiaation of the conditions of service of persons scrving in coitacction with thc affairs of fhc Union or any State: Provided fhat the conditions of service appUcable inunediately before the appointed day iu fhe case of auy person deemed to have been attocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh or to fhe State of Chliattisgarh under section 68 shaU not be varied to his disadvantege except with fhe previous approval ofthe Central Govenunent. (2) AU services prior to the appoiuted day rendered by a persou - (a) if hc is deeiucd to tiave becn aUocated to any State uader section 68, shaU be deemed to have been }y^ rendered iii coniiection with fhe affaiis of that State; (b) if he is deeined to have been allocated to the Union in coimection with fhe administration of thc ClLhallisgai-h shaU bc dccuicd tu havc bccu reTidcred in connection wit.h thc affairs of tTie Union; for the purposes of the rules regulating his conditions of service. (3) The provisions of section 68, shall not appty ia relation to nienibers of any AU India Service. 71. Advisory coinmittses.—The Central Govenunent may, by order estabUsh one or niore Advisoiy Coimnittees for tiie purpose of assisting it ia regard to - (a) the dischai^e of any of its functions uiider this Pai't; aiid (b) the eusuring of fair and equitablc treatment to aU persons affected by the provisions of fhis Part aad fhe proper consideration of any representations made by such persons. 72. Power of Ceatral Government to give directions.— The Central Ctoveminent inay, give such directions to fhe State Goverrmient of Madhya Pradesh and the State Govenuuent of Chhattisgarh as may appear to it to be necessaiy for fhe purpose of giviag efiFect to fhe foregoiag provisions of tfais Part and the State Goverainents shall coinpfy wifh. such directions. 6. Iu oitlcr lo caiiy oul tbc piuvisiuus uf abovc Scctious, Uic Ccultal Govenunent issued guideluies for provisional allocation uuder \ Section 72 ofAct No.28 of 2000 ou 13ih September, 2000, regardmg tbe prixiciples govemiug fhe provisional aUocation of personnel belonging to fhe semces ofher ibsai the ;'yi ludia Semces to the new Sta.lcs iTi accoiilaucc with tlic piuvisious of thc Rcoi^auisatiou Acts, 2000 and thereafter, for final aUocation guideliues were ^ain issued by the Goverrtment of India vide order dated 21st/22nd Deceiaber, 2000. A provision of Advisoiy Conunittees was provided for under Section 71 ofthe Act aad State Advisory Committee was constituted vidc oixlcr datcd 01.01.2001, as pcr Uic pruvisiuus of Scctiou 71 of the Reoi^anisation Act; meeting of that Committee was held on 23Td & 24th February, 2001, under ttie Chau-maaship ofMr. N.V. Lohaai. In fhe meeting of fhat Cominittee certam. modalities for aUocation of ^ T^ ftie persoimel to the successor States were laid down aad lainutes offhc incctiag wcrc also prcparcd. As pcr clausc 3.3 offhc ininutes, it was decided that as thc aUocation of the einployees of State Assembly and Judiciaiy also conies luider the purview of the Reorgaaisation Act, fherefore, looking to fhe speGialties of these services, fhe allocation ofemployees ofthese troo institutions shouM bc madc in. consultation wifh fhc Hon'blc Spcakcrs of fhc both thc Asseiablics aad the Hon'ble Chief Justiccs of both fhe H^h Courts. Again as per clause 3.6 the pnnciples goveming the distnbution of posts were laid down and it was decided to atlocate 26.23% posts to ftie newly created State of Chliatdsgarh aad ia fhe last Unes of Chaptor-V rcgardiag fhc distribution of thc scrviccs of thc einployees of the State Judiciary and the State Asseinbly, it was nientioned that steps should be taken tbr their allocation accordiag to the advice of HoTlTlle. the Speakers of the Statc AsscTnblies and Hon'ble the Chief Justices of both fhe High Courts. Further, in ordcr to cany out fhc purposc of thc Act, guidcUncs dated 22nd March, 2001 (Annexurc P-10) were also issued by the Keorganisation Cell uader the sigiiature of Mr. Kaghuvendra Singh SiroTii, PriTicipal Secrctary, Govemment of Madliya Pradesh, for allocation of the einployees. 7. In order to appreciate ftie arguments advaaced by the leamed coiuisel for the parties, it is necessaiy to inention here the relevaat service particulars ofconcerued Officers: - ^, Mr. A.K. Tiwari; He was ia fhe Above Super Tixne Pay Scate since 1999. He retired on 31rt October, 2001. InitiaUy he opted for the State of Chhattisgarh. Accordingfy, he was provisionally allocated to Uic Siatc uf Clilialtisgarh w.c.f. 01.11.2000. Howcvcr, ou 07.09.2001, oue day before the ineetuig of Hon'ble the Chief Justices of fhe two High Courts, he gave in writing fhat he waat to chauge his option and waated to be aUocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, fhe two Hon'ble Chief Justices advised fhat hc shoulil bc aUocalcd lo tlic Statc of Madhya Pi-adcsh. Bul aflcr fhat ineetmg iu the inonth of October, he agaiu wiftidrew his request for chaage of option for allocation. As his earUer request was atoeady acceded and recomniendations were already sent to the )T Central Govenrment, he was fiiiaUy allocated to the State of Madhya Pradcsh. Mr, D.S. Jaui; On 01.11.2000, he was m the Siiper Time Pay Scale. He retired on 31.07.2002. His name was approved for graat of Above Super Time Scale on 08.07.2000 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. As there was no vacancy ia this scale tiU 01.11.2000, therelbre, he was not given. fhis scale tiU fhe provisional aUocation to the State of Chliattisgarh, Howcver, he was granted Above Super Time Scale w.e.f. 10.08.2001 by the High Court of Chliattisgarh. Mr. B.K. Stuiyastava: He was ia fhe Above Super Time Pay Scale siace 1999, before the bifurcation 6f the State of Madhya Pradesh. Hls honie district was Varanasi He was atlowed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to chauge his home district froia Varauasi to BUaspur vide order dated 04.09.2000, whereas, as per the guidelines issued by the Central Goverainent, for the purpose of aUocatioa, the hoine district was to be considered as on 1st of April, 2000 aad It was decided not to aUow the change of houie district, fhereafter. InitiaUy he opted for fhe State of Madhya Pradesh, but later on, vide letter dated 11,01.2001 (Annexure R-2/1), he requested the Registrar General, Madhya Piadesh High Court, to chaage his option aad the sanie was sent to fhe Registrar General of Chlialtisgaih High Coiu'l ou thc saiuc day. Vidc lcUcr dalcd 30.01.2001 (Aimexure R-2/2) Mr. T.K. Jha, the then Registrar Geaeral of Chhattisgarh High Court conveyed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that the High. Court of Chliatdsgarh gives consent and expresses no objection if Mr. B. K. Shrivastava is aUocated to tlie Stalc of Chliatlisgai-h aud thcicaftcr, vidc uiucr uatcd 07.06.2001, Mr. B.K. Shrivastava was provisiouaUy aUocated to the State of Chliatdsgarh. Mr. V.K. Shrivastava: He was ah-eady drawing the Above Super tiinc Fay Scale siace 1999, before formation of the new Htate of Chhattisgarli i.e. in fhe iindividRd crstwlnlc State of Madhya Pradesh. He had not given his option for atlocation to either of the States. IIowever, ia final allocatkin he was aBocated to fhe State of > l/)^ 10 ClLhattisgarh, as his hoine District Jagdalpur is part of the State of Chliatdsgarh. 8. The HonTile Chief Jiistices of the two High Coiuts met on 08.09.2001 at Jabalpur for advisiag final atlocation of Judicial Officers to ftie successor States and ia that ineeting the Hou'ble CtdefJustices had decided to advice to fixialty allocate, among offaer Judicial Oi5cers of' other pay scales, Mr. B.K. Shrivastava & Mr. V.K. Shrivastava of the Above Super Time Pay Scale to the State of Chliattisgarb aad Mr. A.K. Tiwari ofAbove Super Time Pay Scale to the or^mal State ofMadhya Pradesti w.e.f. 01.11.2000. 9. We have heard the leamed counsel for the parties at lengtti. 10. lt is made ciear liere that in these writ petitions the only challenge is to the allocation of respondents 6 &, 7. I^camed coiinsd for fhe petitioners veiy fiaakly subnutted at the Bar that fhe petitioners are not chaBcnging thc final allocation of ofhcr Of&ccrs. As thc petitioners are affected and aggrieved by the aUocation of respondents 6 & 7, therefore, both the writ petitions sliould be considerKd to that extBnt only. TherRforE;, we an" rcqiiirRd to deridc fhe questiou up to fhat extent only and we are not entermg iuto fhe dctails ofaUocation ofaU thc of&ccrs ofothcr pay scalcs. NATURE OF GUIDBLINES ll.Mr. Saajay K. Agrawal, the leanied Deputy Advocate General ,»,appeariag on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh argued that the \ ^uideliaes issued by the Ccntral Goverruuent, the Advisoiy Conunittee and fhe State Reoi^aaisation CeU are not biadiag in ua.luj-c as Uic samc ait; uot staluloiy iu ualuit;. Thcicfoic, tlicy aic not enforceable at law. But, we do uot find any force ia fhis ai^ument of the learued Deputy Advocate General for fhe reason that as extracted above, Section 72 ofthe Reorganisation ActNo.28 of 2000 envisages that "the Central Govenuaent may, give such diit;cdous lo thc Sftiic Cfovci-uiucut of Madhya Piadcsh aud Ihc State Govemmeiit of Chliattisgarh as may appear to it to be necessaiy for the purpose of giving effect to fhe foregoing provisions of fhis Part and the State Govenunents stiaU comply wifh such -7?7i 11 directions". Therefore, the above guideluies issued by fhe Central Govcnuncnt and thc Advisoiy Committcc constituted uiidcr Scctioa 71 of the Reorgamsation Act, 2000, and the guidelines issued by the Reorganisation CeU ia our cousidered opinion arc issued under the above Section. Therefore, fhese are statutoiy guideliiies aad fhey have statutoi;r force aad any action taken ia accordance wifh these guidcliacs caiuiot bc assailcd on fhc groiind that thcsc guidclincs are not enforceable. For fhis view, we are fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra and another vs. Chaadrakaat Anaat Kulkarni aad others reported ia AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1990 (Pam 9 & 10). ARTICLB Z35 OF THE CONSTUTITON OF IBDIA 12. Learncd couuscl for fhe petitioners argued fhat it is aa adniitted fact that before issuaace of final aUocatioii order the two High Courts were not consulted. Only HonTile the ChiefJustices considered aad prepared fhe Ust and gave their advice to fhe Ccntral Goverrunent. As per Article 235 of the Constitution of India, powers of control over district courts aud courts subordinate fhereto includiug fhe posting and proinotions are vested in the High Court. Therefore, before sendiag fhe list for final aUocation to fhe Centa-al Govermnent, the Ust ou^ht to have been approved by FuU Court of two H^h Courts aad ia absence fhereof, the final aUocation is not ia coulbiiuily wilh Articlc 235 of (lic Coustilutiou of ludia. Thcicfoi'c, fhe aUocation suflFeis from Ulegalily beiag contraiy to Ardcle 235 of fhe Constitution of India. 13.The leamed couiiscl for fhc petitioncr placcd rcliancc on thc foltowing judgments: - a. Madan Mohan Choudhary vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 396. b. Gauhati High Court and another vs. Kuldhar PIiukan reported m AIR 2002 SC 1589. c, Brtjmolian Lal vs. Unlon of India reported m 2002 (S) SCC 1. d. Tejpal vs. State of U.P. and another reported ia AIR 1986 SC 1814. ./•• L-- 12 14.0n fhe other haad, learaed counsel for the Union of India; leamed counsel tbr the Higli Coiuts; leamed counsel tbr respondents 6 & 7; and also leamed coiuisel for the State Govenunents submitted that looking to the special aad peculiar circumstaiices and being aa extra-ordinaiy event by virtue of Ardcle 4 of fhe Constitution, action was required to be taken uiider fhe special provisions ofAct No.28 of 2000 (M.P. Reorgarusation Act, 2000) and under this Act, the C^ntral Goverruaent was the only conipetent authorily who was entitied to take fiTi.il decision. Therefore, ia fhis case, Article 235 of the Constitution of India is not appUcable, as this Act has been enacted under Articles 2, 3 & 4of the Constitution of India. In order to canyout and give eflect to fhe provisions of ttie Reoi^anisation Act, suppleBiental aud incidental provisions of law as enacted by fhe ParUament under Ardcles 3 aud 4 of ffae Constitution of India have been niade. In this l^ht siiiular question came up for consideration before fhe Himachal Pradesh Higli Court m the matter of Slui H.D. Kainthala, Chief Judiclal Maglstrate vs. The Uaion of India and others reported in 1974 (1) S.L.R. 8, iu which fhe H^h Court of Hitaachal Pradesh while interpretiiig Section 82 ofthe Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, held that, the fuiiction of accom.plishing fhe division and uitegranon of the services, which includes the equation of posts and the fixation of seniorily, is a fiuiction entirely entrusted to the Cential GovemmLent by Section 82 of the Ptmjab Reoi^aaisation Act and that it is not open to fhis Court to sit la judguient on fhe luerils of a decision of fhe Centa-al Govenunent ia exercise of that function. decision of fhe Central Goverrunent under Section 82 can be assaUed either on thc ground that it is iu cxccss of fhc powcrs conlerred by fhe statue or is vitiated by rnala fides aad pronipted by extauueous considerations". It was furfher held that, whefher "Reorganisation of States—CentialGoverruiient coiapetent to fix seniorily of Judicial OfBcers as this fiuiction is cntrusted to High Court undcr Articlcs 233 to 235—Held,Articles 233 to 235 are not appUcable.' In that judgment it was further held that, "fhe Centoral Govenuneut has been entrusted with the power to determiae fhe equation of posts and fix the seniority of aU the Judicial Officers, be they atlotted fmm. /' /' 13 Punjab already serviag ni Himachal Pradesh. The Puujab Re-oi^aaisatiou Act can be traced to the provisions of Arti.de 3 aud Article 4 of fh.e Constitution. Article 3 (a) einpowers ParliaDient to enact a law formiug a new State by separation of territoiy fioin any State. Uudcr Atticlc 3 (b) tlic law cau piuvidc fur iuci'casiug thc area of any State. The Rxplanation to Article 3 riefines the expresslou 'State' used iu clauses (a) and (b) ofArticle 3 as iucludiag a Union Territory. Ardcle 4 provides that a law referred to in Ardcle 3 shaU contam such provisions for the amendment of the Pirst Schedule and fhe Fourth Schedule as inay be necessaiy to give effect to the provisions of