Case: Bishan Chand &amp; Ors Vs. Sarabjit Singh &amp; Ors

4. The appellants belonged to Pepsu Service. On 20 October, 1956, the appellants had been removed from the position ofto Inspectors On 1 November, 1956 there was the reorganization of the State of Punjab. Pepsu became merged in Punjab.. The appellants became integrated with other Inspectors working in the State of Punjab.5. On 1 March, 1957 the appellants were reverted from the position of Inspector toOn 11 April, 1957 the appellants were promoted again to the position of Inspector.

Court's reasoning:
3. The respondents have been treated to be senior to the appellants on the basis of the PunjabSubordinate Service Rules, 1936 hereinafter referred to as the 1936 Rules. Under the 1936 Rules seniority is dependent on the passing of departmental examination. The appellants passed the departmental examination after the respondents had done so. Therefore, the appellants are treated as junior to theThe contention of the appellants that conditions of service have been varied to their disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Government is utterly unsound.It therefore follows from paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of the aforesaid memorandum that as far as departmental promotion is concerned the Central Government told the State Governments that they might, if they so desired, change the conditions of service and for this purpose they might assume the previous approval of the Central Government as required by the proviso to section 115(7) of the States Re0organisation Act.13. In N.A. Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Commissioner South Kanara, Mangalore (1) a question arose as to whether the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959 were ma de with the previous approval of the Central Government under the proviso to section 115, subsection (7) of the States Re0organisation Act. It was held there that the memorandum of the Central Government dated 11 May, 1957 amounted to previous approval within the meaning of section 115(7) of the States Re0organisation Act. The Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959 were therefore held to be validly made.14. The decision in Raghavendra Raos ([1964] 7 S.C.R. 549.) case has been relied on and applied in the recent decision in writ petition No. 385 of 1969 and other Writ Petitions: Mohammad Shujat Ali &Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. ([1975] 1 S.C.R. 449.).15. The condition of service in regard to passing of departmental examination for the purpose of promotion is" therefore, fully clothed with the previous approval of the Central Government. The appellants also appeared in the examination. They availed of the same method of promotion. They have suffered no prejudice because they passed the departmental examination later than the respondents.