Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. - (1.) THE recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service which is the backbone of the administrative machinery of the country, is made by different methods viz. by a competitive examination, by selection of substantive member of a State Civil Service and by selection, in special cases from among persons, who hold in a substantive capacity gazetted posts in connection with the affairs of a State and who are not members of a State Civil Service. The Petitioners in their endeavour to hold the Indian Administrative Service (IAS for short), post have instituted this writ petition clamouring for issuance of a direction to the official Respondents to send their names of the Selection Committee after quashing the State Government's decision transferring the non -State Civil Service posts to the State Civil Service.
(2.) A brief narration of facts to the extent necessary to get hang of the issue is that Petitioner No. 1 is a confirmed Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, with effect from 1st -September, 1977 and presently holding the post of Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner. He is an ex -Serviceman having served the Indian Army from 30th July, 1963 to 10th January, 1968, i.e. during the period of emergency and after release from the Army initially joined as Excise and Taxation Officer on 20th June, 1972. Subsequently, on being given the benefit of military service rendered by him, he stood confirmed as Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner with effect from 18th March, 1983. Petitioner No. 2 is a direct recruit and on being appointed initially as the District Food and Supplies Controller and having been promoted on various promotional posts is presently holding the post of the Additional Director Food and Supplies Both the Petitioners claim to have unblemished outstanding/excellent service record. They also claim to have been holding the highest posts to which a non -State Civil Service Officer can be appointed. In exercise, of powers conferred under Rule 8(2) of the Indian. Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as the 1954 Rules), the State of Haryana decided to fill up two posts of IAS by considering the cases of eligible non -State Civil Service Officers having excellent service career. The State Government issued a circular No. 15/3/89 -S(1) dated 22nd June, 1989, copy of which is Annexure P -1, calling upon all the Financial Commissioner and the Administrative Secretaries of the State of Haryana, to recommend two names of non -Haryana Civil Service officers including officers of Technical Service by 24th July, 1989, who fulfilled' the following conditions: (i) Outstanding merit and ability; (ii) Who had worked for at least 12 years in the State Government on gazetted posts and should be holding a substantive post; and (iii) should be less than 54 years of age. The date stipulated for fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions was 1st January, 1989. In pursuance of circular, (Annexure P -1 the names of the Petitioners were recommended, along with other eligible officers, by their respective departments, after getting approval of the Minister Incharge which further got approval of the Chief Minister of Haryana. But before the names of the recommended officers could be forwarded for consideration by the Selection Committee, the new Chief Minister was enthroned and he too, after due deliberations, approved the names of the officers so recommended, including the Petitioners.
(3.) THE Petitioners allegations are that the State Government after abruptly reviewing its decision, Annexure P -1, decided not to consider the names of the Petitioners and other non -State Civil Service Officers. It is this action of the State Government which has been subjected to judicial scrutiny in the instant petition, on grounds, viz. the State Government is exercising its powers in an arbitrary manner to accommodate the officers of its liking and is not giving due representation to the non -State Civil Service Officers; the State Government is failing to invoke the provisions of Rule 8(2) of the 1954 Rules which has resulted in discriminatory treatment to the non -State Civil Service Officers.;