he filed a civil suit challenging his reversion.
appeal by special leave from the order dated february 17 1969 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in regular second appeal number 1624 of 1968.
357 359 and 418 of 1967 respectively and civil appeals number.
he was reverted as a clerk on february 3 1960 on the ground that he failed to qualify the test prescribed under certain administrative instructions issued on june 21 1958.
appeals from the judgments and orders dated march 22 1968 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in civil writ number.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated december 14 1967 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in regular second appeals number.
536 of 1966 and 836 of 1967 and civil appeals number 2227 of 1969.
number.
k. mehta hardev singh k. l. mehta k. r. nagaraja and qamaruddin for the respondent in c.a.
shamsher jang bahadur was provisionally promoted as an assistant on december 9 1959 in the punjab civil secretariat at chandigarh.
hardev singh for the respondents in c.a.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hedge j. these appeals by certificate raise two companymon questions of law for decision viz.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
that decree was affirmed by the appellate companyrt.
31 and 1279 of 1969.
k. daphtary hardev singh k. l. mehta s. k. mehta k. nagaraia and m. qamaruddin for the respondent in c.a.
c. mahajan and r. n. sachthey for the appellants in a. number 31 of 1969 .
somewhat similar are the facts in the other appeals.
number 2227 of 1969 .
1639 to 1641 of 1968.
bishan narain and r. n. sachthey for the appellant in c.a.
1639 to 1641 of 1968 .
c. chagla and r. n. sachthey for the appellants in a. number 2227 of 1969 .
s. chawla and r. n. sachthey for the appellants in a. number 1279 of 1969 .
the high companyrt of punjab and haryana dismissed the second appeal filed by the state.
number.
309 of the companystitution and further whether such an addition requires the approval of the central government under s. 115 of the states re organization act 1956.
the suit was decreed by the trial companyrt.
for deciding the two questions of law formulated earlier it would be sufficient if we refer to the facts of any one of the aforementioned cases.
31 and 1279 of 1969 .
number 1639 of 1968 .
hardev singh k. l. mehta s. l. mehta k. r. nagaraja and qamaruddin for the respondents in c.a.
number.
1640 and 1641 of 1968 .
