Ahmadi, J. - (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) The appellants were members of the Haryana State Services and were working in different capacities in the State of Haryana in the year 1990. In that year the total strength of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) was 200 against which only 155 officers were in position; there being 45 vacancies. The Government of Haryana took a decision to resort to special recruitment under Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 (hereinafter called the Rules) which were admittedly in force then. Special recruitment to service could be made under Rule 5 which rule may be reproduced at this stage : "5. Members to be appointed by the Governor of Haryana from amongst accepted candidates - Members of the service shall be appointed by the Governor of Haryana from time to time as required from among accepted candidates whose names have been duly entered in accordance with these rules in one or other of the registers of accepted candidates to be maintained under these rules : Provided that if in the opinion of the State Government the exigencies of the service so require, the State Government may make special recruitment to the service by such methods as it may by notification specify after consultation with the Punjab Service Commission." The appellants contended that in exercise of the power conferred by the said proviso, 21 posts belonging to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) were taken out from the purview of the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the HPSC) and were decided to be filled up by special recruitment. The State Government issued a Circular dated July 17, 1990, to all Heads of Departments of the State Government calling upon them to recommend eligible and suitable officers as per the criteria indicated therein for being considered for appointment by special recruitment. The Circular inter alia provided that special recruitment would be made from amongst Class-II officers, excepting those who have a channel of promotion to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and excepting those belonging to technical services, who fulfil the eligibility conditions set out therein. The eligibility criteria indicated in the Circular read as under : "(i) should at least be a graduate of recognised university. (ii) should not have attained the age of more than 48 years. (iii) should have rendered at least five years continuous Government service in regular capacity in Haryana. (iv) should have overall record of very good category or better than that during the last 5 years (i.e. from 1985-86 to 1989-90)." The date of reckoning for the purpose of age, educational qualifications and length of service was fixed as 1st January, 1990. The Heads of Departments were also informed that uptodate confidential reports, integrity certificates, information regarding pendency of any complaints/departmental proceedings, service book, etc., should also be forwarded to the Government. It will be seen from the above Circular that the Government initially decided not to consider those officers having a promotional channel for special recruitment but it was later felt that the exclusion was not warranted and consequently by a notification dated December 20, 1990, they too were included for consideration provided that satisfied the eligibility criteria set out hereinabove. By a subsequent notification dated January 25, 1991, the Government of Haryana in consultation with the HPSC made a slight modification in the eligibility requirement by substituting it as under : "should have overall record of Very Good category, i.e. at least 3 Very Good or better reports and 2 reports of not less than Good category, during the last five years (i.e. from 1985-86 to 1989-90)." The above Circular and the subsequent Notifications issued by the Haryana Government were challenged in a Writ Petition C.W.P. No. 1201 of 1991, filed by certain State employees wherein the validity of Rule 5 was also put in issue. Another set of Writ Petitions was also filed by officers of various departments who were not eligible for special recruitment under the aforesaid circular and notifications. The said Writ Petitions were ultimately dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on April 2, 1991. Against the said order of dismissal of the Writ Petitions, two appeals have been filed in this Court by special leave and they are numbered Civil Appeals Nos. 2481 and 2482 of 1991. In those appeals this Court has ordered that 1 plus 5 i.e. 6 posts of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) be kept available for the appellants should they succeed in the appeals.
(3.) Out of 90 candidates whose names were recommended for consideration by different Heads of Departments the State Government, after taking into consideration their inter se merit, suitability and eligibility, recommended the names of 75 candidates to the HPSC for election. While the HPSC was in the process of selecting candidates on the basis of their past record and the interviews, it appears that pursuant to an undertaking given by the Advocate-General of Haryana at the hearing of C.W.P. No. 1201 of 1991 to send the eligible candidates from the education and local self-departments of the State Government, the cases of eligible candidates from these two departments had to be considered and forwarded to the HPSC to enable it to complete the selection process. However, before this could be done the scenario on the political front underwent a change. A new Government headed by Shri Bhajan Lal came to power. It decided to review the decision of the earlier Government in regard to special recruitment and, therefore, the names of candidates from the education and local self-department were not forwarded to the HPSC. The petitioners contended that even though the selection process was at an advanced stage and only the names of candidates from the aforesaid two departments were required to be forwarded the entire process was scuttled by the State Governments refusal to forward the names of the candidates belonging to the said two departments. They further contend that this exercise was undertaken by the newly formed Government in total disregard of the decision of the High Court rendered on April 2, 1991, in C.W.P. No. 1201 of 1991. It may here be mentioned that the newly formed Government called a meeting of the Council of Ministers to review the decision in regard to special recruitment taken by the earlier Government and decided to withdraw the notifications dated December 20, 1990 and January 25, 1991. It was also noticed that there was nothing on Government record to show that the Advocate-General was authorised to give such an undertaking on behalf of the Government. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the administrative department of the State Government decided to withdraw the aforesaid two notifications and the matter was placed before the Council of Ministers for approval as required by the Rules of Business (1977) of the State Government. Thereupon, on December 30, 1991, the following notification was issued : The Governor of Haryana hereby withdraws Haryana Government, General Administration (Services) Department, Notification No. 41/2/90-SII, dated 20th December, 1990 and No. 41/2/90-SII, dated 25th January, 1991." Thus, the newly formed Government took a decision to reframe its policy in regard to making of special recruitment in consultation with the HPSC under the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules as is evident from the Agenda of the meeting of Council of Ministers to be held on December 11, 1991. The appellants contend that even the newly formed Government saw the need for special recruitment to meet the exigencies of service but instead of permitting the HPSC to complete the selection process it decided to set at naught the entire process by issuing the notification dated December 30, 1991. The present appellants thereupon filed a Writ Petition, C. W.P. No. 565 of 1992, impugning the decision of the new Government to cancel the notifications dated December 20, 1990 and January 25, 1991, by the impugned notification dated December 30, 1991. Notice was issued by the High Court at the preliminary hearing of the Writ Petition whereupon the respondents filed a counter explaining the reasons for its subsequent action. The Division Bench of the High Court after taking into consideration the submissions made at the Bar dismissed the Writ Petition on February 7, 1992, by the following order : "No ground to interfere. Dismissed." It is this decision of the Division Bench of the High Court which is sought to be assailed before us. ;