General approval under state reorganisation law validated service rules, while constitutional challenge to earlier rank-related orders failed.

Previous approval under section 115(7) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 was held satisfied by the Central Government's general concurrence to the proposed service-rule changes, so the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959 remained valid and applicable. The challenge based on pre-reorganisation Madras Government orders also failed because the State was not impleaded, the grievance had not been raised earlier, and no material established infringement of Articles 16 or 311(2). The petition was therefore rejected in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959 were made without the previous approval of the Central Government under section 115(7) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 and were therefore inapplicable to the petitioner; (ii) Whether the pre-reorganisation orders of the Madras Government reduced the petitioner in rank in violation of Articles 311(2) and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959 were made without the previous approval of the Central Government under section 115(7) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 and were therefore inapplicable to the petitioner?

Analysis: The proviso to section 115(7) preserves the State's rule-making power under Article 309 but prohibits variation of pre-appointed-day conditions of service to the employee's disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. The approval contemplated by the proviso was held to mean a general concurrence to the proposed variation within the limits indicated by the Union Government, and not a detailed scrutiny of every rule. The Central Government's memorandum, after considering the relevant service conditions, indicated that no protection need be provided in matters such as promotion, and copies of the new rules were to be sent for information.

Conclusion: The memorandum amounted to previous approval within section 115(7), and the rules were validly made; this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the pre-reorganisation orders of the Madras Government reduced the petitioner in rank in violation of Articles 311(2) and 16 of the Constitution of India?

Analysis: The challenge failed at the threshold because the Madras State was not impleaded and the petitioner had not raised the grievance while serving under that State. The Court also found no material to show that Article 16 had been infringed, and accepted the State's stand that the impugned orders were passed by competent authorities after considering the petitioner's merits on each occasion.

Conclusion: No infringement of Article 16 or Article 311(2) was established; this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed in its entirety, as the service rules were upheld and the constitutional challenge to the earlier orders was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Previous approval under section 115(7) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 may be satisfied by a general governmental concurrence to the proposed variation in service conditions, and a service challenge to pre-reorganisation orders must be supported by a substantiated constitutional infringement.

---