R.S Pathak, C.J:— By this writ petition, the petitioners pray that she order of the Himachal Pradesh Government holding them to be ad-boc Treasury Assistants and, therefore, not entitled to a place in the joint seniority list of Treasury Assistants in the Treasury Organisation be quashed. They also pray for an order that they should be treated as regular Assistants in the Treasury organisations. It is further prayed that the promotions of respondents No. 3 to 5 be quashed.

2. The petitioners joined service as clerks in the State of Jubbal. On the merger of that State in Himachal Pradesh their services were taken over by the Himachal Pradesh Administration as Treasury Clerks. On November 1, 1966, with the reorganisation of the State of Punjab and the transfer of certain areas to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, the Central Government allotted respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who were also Treasury Clerks, to the Union of India in relation to the areas transferred to Himachal Pradesh.

3. In Himachal Pradesh promotions from the post of Treasury Clerk to the post of Treasury Assistant were governed by the Himachal Pradesh District-Subordinate Service (Class III) Rules, 1962. Pursuant to those Rules the petitioners were promoted as Assistants. In 1969 those posts were held by the petitioners in a regular capacity. Pursuant to the promotion orders the petitioners worked in the district administration under the Revenue Department of Himachal Pradesh.

4. It may be mentioned that in the erstwhile Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh all the Treasuries were under the Revenue Department while in the erstwhile State of Punjab the treasuries were under the Finance Department.

5. On September 1, 1970 the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh created a Treasury Organisation consisting of treasury officials drawn from the existing treasuries in old Himachal Pradesh as well from the newly added areas. The Treasury Organisation was placed under the Finance Department. The Treasury Officials working in the old territory of Himachal Pradesh were called upon to opt. whether they would serve in this Treasury Organisation. The petitioners opted in favour of that course and they were accordingly absorbed in the Treasury Organisation.

6. On September 9, 1971 the Himachal Pradesh Government prepared a provisional joint seniority list of Assistants in the Treasury Organisation, the seniority being shown with respect to November 1, 1966 and September 1, 1970. The petitioners were shown at Serial Nos. 23 and 24. The list showed the petitioners as occupying the post of Assistant in an officiating capacity. Representations were invited against the entries in the list. The petitioners did not file any representation. After considering representations filed by others, the Advisory Committee constituted under the Punjab Re-organisation Act, advised a change in the; seniority has. It pointed out that promotions or confirmations effected between November 1, 1966 and August 31, 1970 should not be recongnised, and that she names of persons promoted as Assistants during that period and shown in the provisional joint seniority list should be deleted and they should be shown as ad-hoc promotees. The Himachal Pradesh Government decided to act upon the Advisory Committee's advice regarding the deletion of the petitioners' names from the joint seniority list. The petitioners were invited to represent against the action proposed. They were informed that in case the action proposed was not acceptable they could seek reversion to their parent district administrative offices under the Revenue Department. The petitioners represented against the proposal for deleting their names from the seniority list of Treasury Assistants. On April 26, 1973, the Himachal Pradesh Government published the final joint seniority list of Assistants in the Treasury Organisation as on November 1, 1966. It was stated that the list had been prepared with the approval of the Central Government. The names of the petitioners were not included in the seniority list. It was noted that the petitioners ware to be considered working as Assistants in the Himachal Pradesh Treasury Organisation on a purely temporary and ad-hoc basis.

7. It appears from the record before me that the question of creating a Treasury Organisation in Himachal Pradesh on the pattern obtaining in Punjab had been under the consideration of the. Himachal Pradesh Government for some time before November 1, 1966 and as the proposal was bound to take time to materialise it was decided that the officials alloted from the erstwhile State of Punjab should be kept in an isolated cadre until upon the bifurcation of the composite district cadres in old Himachal Pradesh some of the staff working in the Treasuries could be constituted into a separate unit and integrated with the isolated unit of allotted Punjab officials. Members of the staff of the old Himachal Pradesh Treasuries were put into a separate unit on September 1, 1970. Their integration then took place with the allotted Punjab officials.

8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the integration between the two units mentioned above the Central Government and the Advisory Committee had no rule to play at all inasmuch as the integration was effected with respect to the situation obtaining on September 1, 1970, long after November 1, 1966, the “appointed day”. The submission is that the only relevant date for the purpose of considering integration between the allotted Punjab officials and existing Himachal Pradesh officials is November 1, 1966.

9. It seems to ms that it is nos necessary that an official serving in the erstwhile State of Punjab must be allotted to a successor State with effect from November 1, 1966. Section 82(2) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act empowers the Central Government to determine the successor State to which every person shall be finally allotted for service and also to determine the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. The date of allotment may be a date after November 1, 1966. As regards integration, that must be effected with reference to the same date as the date of allotment. Integration must follow immediately on the heels of allotment. They are processes intimately associated with each other in point of time, and if the allotment is made with respect to a certain date the integration must also be effected with respect to the same date.

10. In the present case, it is apparent that the allotment of the incoming Punjab Treasury officials took effect with reference to November 1, 1966. They may have been kept thereafter in an isolated cadre, but that would make no difference to their date of allotment. If November 1, 1966 was the date of their allotment, that necessarily had also to be the date of their integration. Now the process of integration could take account of only those facts and circumstances which existed on or immediately before that date. It could not take into account something that happened long after that date. Therefore, the integration of the erstwhile Punjab officials with the Himachal Pradesh unit created on September 1, 1970 could not be the integration contemplated by Section 82 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act. The integration of the incoming Punjab officials had to be effected with the existing Himachal Pradesh officials in the context of circumstances existing on the date immediately preceding November 1, 1966. Neither the Central Government nor the Advisory Committee, acting under the provisions of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, had any power to intervene in an integration effected with reference to circumstances arising after the date of allotment. In my opinion, the petitioners are right in contending that the action taken in integrating the two units with reference to what happened on September 1, 1970 is without jurisdiction. Even though the joint seniority list purports to refer to November 1, 1966, in point of fact it takes into account, and is based on, a context which came into existence on September 1, 1970. In the circumstances, the joint seniority list must be quashed. As the order of the Himachal Pradesh Government that the petitioners should be considered as ad-hoc Treasury Assistants flows from the direction and advice of the Central Government and of the Advisory Committee, that must consequently also be quashed. A fresh seniority list will now be drawn up after determining the validity of the petitioners' promotion as Assistants. In case the seniority list is proposed with respect to November i, 1966, it will be for the Central Government to finalise it. If, however, the seniority list bears reference to the date September 1, 1970, the Himachal Pradesh Government will finalise it independently of any directions or advice given by the Central Government and the Advisory Committee under the Punjab Re-organisation Act.

11. The petitioners have also challenged the promotions of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and S. as Assistant Superintendents Treasury. According to paragraph 18 of the writ petition those respondents have been appointed on an ad-hoc basis. The petitioners say that they should have been considered for the appointment. They also allege that these respondents were ineligible for promotion as Assistant Superintendents Treasury on the basis of the prevailing rules. It seems to me that the appointments being ad-hoo in nature, the petitioners have no right to be considered for those appointments. If they have no right to be considered, it is not open to them to challenge the appointment of the said respondents. Besides the status of the petitioners as Assistants is itself in question. Unless it is found finally that the petitioners are entitled to that status, they cannot themselves be considered for appointment as Assistant Superintendents Treasury. That final determination will be rendered now by the appropriate Government in accordance with the observations set out above. In the circumstances the petitioners' challenge to the promotions of the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as Assistant Superintendents Treasury must fail in this writ petition.

12. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents has raised three preliminary objections. The first is that the petitioners have no cause of action because before the seniority list was finalised they were given the opportunity of objecting thereto and were given the option of reverting to the Revenue Department from which they had originally come. The second contention is that they had not resorted to departmental channels for redress of their grievance.

13. The third preliminary objection is that the promotions of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were made on an ad-hoc basis and there was no violation of any rule of law. The three preliminary objections are un-sustainable. The first objection is meaningless. The question before the court is whether the Central Government and the Advisory Committee had any jurisdiction to interfere in the process of finalisation of the joint seniority list. And the mere circumstance that an option had been given to the petitioners does not affect the maintainability of the writ petition. As regards the existence of departmental remedies, there is no indication whether the petitioners were entitled to any statutory departmental remedy for the redress of their grievances. As regards the third preliminary objection, the question whether the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were ad hoc Assistant Superintendents Treasury is a matter involved in the merits of the writ petition and cannot be considered by way of a preliminary objection.

14. The writ petition is allowed in part. The joint seniority list is quashed and the order of the Himachal Pradesh Government that the petitioners shall be treated as ad-hoc Treasury Assistants is also quashed. A fresh seniority list will now be drawn up after determining the validity of the petitioners' promotion as Assistants. The remaining reliefs are refused. There is no order as to costs.

15. Petition allowed.