N Civil Appeal Nos 332182 and 3524 of 1983
From the Judgment and Order dated 25
1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP Nos
67779 and 9779
PP Rao and CM Nayar for the Appellants in both the appeals
NS Das Behl for the Respondent in CA No 3524 of 1983
Awadh Behari Rohtagi Mahabir Singh AG Prasad and Prem Malhotra for the state of Haryana
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K RAMASWAMY J
1
Since common questions of facts and law arise for decision in these two appeals they are dis posed of by a common judgment
Civil Appeal No 322182 and Civil Appeal No 352483 arise out of the common judgment in Civil Writ Petition Nos
67779 and 9779 and a few other petitions dated May 2 1980 on the file of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
The writ petitions were dismissed and the appellants had leave of this court under Article 136 of the Constitution
The facts lie on a short compass 538 and reference to the facts on record in Civil Writ No 97 of 1979 are sufficient for disposal of these appeals
Writ Petition No 97 of 1979 relates to Punjab service while Civil Writ Petition No 67779 relates to Haryana
The appellants were direct recruits to the ministeri al services in the subordinate offices of the Directorates of Agriculture of the respective states
Admittedly all are governed by Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules 1933 for short rules 
The respective state Governments upgraded on February 8 1979 offices of the Directorates as A  Class and the Subordinate Offices situated elsewhere remained as B  Class
The appellants and other filed writ petitions on February 26 1976 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to upgrade the Subordinate Offices of the Department of Agriculture as A  Class to treat the appellants on par with the similar employees working in the office of the Directorates of Agriculture treat the Direc torate of Agriculture and Subordinate Offices as one depart ment for maintaining common seniority of all of them to upgrade their scales of pay on the basis of the said senior ity and to quash the order dated February 8 1979 declaring the Directorate as A  Class as wholly arbitrary and dis criminatory
Pending appeals the respective Governments by proceedings dated March 2 1982 classified the Directorate and Subordinate Offices as A  Class
The Government have also accorded equal pay to the employees similarly situated
Therefore the only question that survives to be resolved is whether the Subordinate Offices and the Directorate would be treated as one unit and common seniority of all the employ ees should be maintained
Shri PP Rao and Shri CM Nayyar learned counsel for the appellants in the respective appeals contended that the appellants were selected along with the persons appoint ed in the office of the respective Directorates
They pos sessed the same qualifications their scales of pay are now the same
Their service conditions are also the same under the rules and therefore they are entitled to maintenance of common seniority for the purpose of promotion
It is seen that the appointments were made somewhere in 1973
From the list produced before us in Civil Appeal No 322182 relating to the State of Haryana among the persons selected by the Recruitment Board though some of the persons are found to have secured higher ranking in the list prepared by the Selection Board they were appointed to the Subordinate Offices while persons below them in ranking were appointed in the Directorate
When we enquired from the counsel for the State Shri Rohtagi the learned Senior Counsel has produced before us the not 539 ings which show that the Director had taken five of them one of whom had secured first class in Matriculation two ex service candidates and two candidates who secured higher percentage of marks at the qualifying matriculation examina tion
In the view we are taking this solitary circumstances does not militate against the ultimate conclusion that we have reached in the matter
Admittedly rule 3 of the rules provides that the service shall consist of seven sections and in each section there shall be such number of posts whether permanent or temporary of each grade specified in the appendix as the Local Government from time to time may determine
Under rule 41 the Director of Agriculture shall make appointment to all the posts in the service except the post of Junior Clerks other than those sanctioned for Head Office Mukaddams and the posts shown under Section 7 of the appendix
All other appointments shall be made by the Head Office concerned vide rule 4
Rule 7 prescribes the method of recruitment
Rule 71I specifies thus In the case of Superintendent Office of the Director i by promotion from the amongst the Head Assistants em ployed in the office or ii by selection from amongst Superintendents or Head Assistants with at least five years clerical experience in other Government office
 Rule 7iJ read thus In the case of Head Assistant i by promotion from amongst Assistant and Stenographers with clerical experience who have proved their fitness for the appointment or ii by selection from amongst clerks employed in the office of Government other than the office of the Director Rule 71K the case of Superintendent or Head Clerk of a Subordinate Office 540 i by promotion from amongst Senior Clerks who have proved their fitness for the post or ii by selection from amongst clerks employed in Government Office other than the office in which the postoffice is to be filled
 Rule 7 1L In the case of Assistant i by promotion from amongst Senior Clerks in their respec tive offices who have proved their fitness for appointment to the post or ii by selection from amongst clerks employed in Government Offices other than the office in which the post is to be filled or iii by direct recruitment provided that no graduate not already in Government service shall be appointed to be an Assistant unless he has been recommended as fit for appointment by the Punjab University Appointment Board
 Sub rule 2 Appointment to any post by the promotion of officials already in service or by the transfer of officials shall be made strictly by selection and no official shall have any claim to such an appointment as of right
 The candidates have to undergo probation as provided in Rule 9 the details of which are not relevant
Rule 10 provides seniority of members of the service
The seniority of the members in the service shall in each class of ap pointment shown in the appendix be determined by the dates of their substantive appointment on probation or otherwise to a permanent vacancy in such class
The other details are not necessary
Hence omitted
In the appendix the office of the Director of Agri culture Section 6 mentions ministerial posts of Superin tendent Head Assis 541 tants Assistants Stenographers Senior Clerks Junior Clerks
Their varying pay scales have also been mentioned the details of which are now not material
In the Subordi nate Offices one Superintendent seven Head Clerks and two Senior Clerks are the cadres
A resume of these rules clearly shows that for the appointment of all the posts including Junior Clerks in the Head Office the appointing authority is the Director
All appointments to the post of Junior Clerks other than Head Office shall be by the concerned Head Office
As per the appendix the staffing pattern in the Office of the Director of Agriculture and the Subordinate Offices is entirely different
The only common element is the Senior Clerks
The seniority is to be maintained on the basis of the substan tive appointment to the respective cadres
The seniority Of the members of the service shall in each class of appoint ment shown in the appendix be determined by the date of their substantive appointment or promotion or otherwise to permanent vacancies in such a class
The method of appoint ment has been adumbrated under Rule 71I to L by promo tion from amongst the persons working in the respective subordinate posts in the respective offices in the first instance or by selection from amongst persons working in the Government Offices including Subordinate Offices and in some cases by the direct recruitment
Thereby it is clear that for filling up the vacancies arising in the post of Superintendent Assistants and Senior Clerks the persons working in the Subordinate Offices or the Government Offices are the feeder channels or in some cases by direct recruit ment
Sub rule 2 of Rule 7 makes the matter clear that they have got right to be considered but it is strictly by selection and they have no claim to the appointment as of right
It is open to the Government to constitute different cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to its administrative convenience and expediency
The office of the Director is the apex office obviously to control and oversee the functioning of the subordinate offices and the other allied departments under his control monitoring the implementation of the Government s agricultural programmes
It may not be necessary to maintain a common cadre of the employees of the Directorate and the Subordinate Offices
Each cadre is a separate service or a part of the service sanctioned for administrative expediency
Therefore each may be a separate unit and the posts allocated to the cadre may be permanent or temporary
It is seen from the appendix that in the office of the Directorate there is one Superin tendent three Head Assistants four Assistances two Ste nographers seven Senior Clerks and twelve Junior Clerks
In the Subordinate Offices there is one Superintendent seven Head Clerks and two 542 Senior Clerks
This is obviously on the basis of administra tive need
No doubt the office of the Directorate and the Subordinate Offices have been compendiously shown in Section 6 of the Appendix
That does not by itself mean that office of the Directorate and Subordinate Offices are treated under the rules as one unit or at par
as contended for by Shri PP Rao
As pointed out in the beginning the Director had committed some irregularities at the time of initial ap pointments in the year 1973 when he picked up five persons out of the select list of the candidates and appointed them in the Directorate of Haryana Government deviating from the order of merit prepared by the Board
They were selected at a common selection by the Recruitment Board along with other candidates who stood higher in the order of merit prepared by the Selection Board
But this was done in the year 1973 and the appointments have not been challenged till date of filing of the writ petition in 1979
Even in the writ peti tion no challenge was made
This is pressed into service only to show that the appellants are similarly situated with them
After the appointments were made and the candidates joined in the respective posts for consideration for promo tion the Rules occupy the field and the claims are to be considered according to Rule 7
Therefore though we may not agree with the learned counsel for the State that the Direc tor had absolute discretion to pick and choose arbitrarily and make appointment of the posts yet undoubtedly he had power to appoint them
Normally the order of appointment would be in the order of merit of candidates from the list and must be in accordance with rules
His exercise of power should not be arbitrary
The absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate of rule of law upon which our whole constitutional edifice is based
In a system governed by Rule of Law discretion when conferred upon an executive authority must be confined within clearly defined limits
The rules provide the guidance for exercise of the discre tion in making appointment from out of selection lists which was prepared on the basis of the performance and position obtained at the selection
The appointing authority is to make appointment in the order of gradation subject to any other relevant rules like rotation or reservation if any or any other valid and binding rules or instructions having force of law
If the discretion is exercised without any principle or without any rule it is a situation amounting to the anti thesis of Rule of Law
Discretion means sound discretion guided by law or governed by known principles of rules not by whim or fancy or caprice of the authority
We refrain from going into the correctness of the choice made by the Director due to latches in not assailing the correct ness of the appointment for well over six years
The validi ty of the rules have not been questioned
The only question is as stated earlier whether the 543 employees working in the Head Office and the Subordinate Office are entitled to common seniority
The rules them selves made a distinction between the persons appointed in the Directorate and the Subordinate Offices as separate cadres and the subordinate cadre in some cases is the feeder cadre for promotion to the post in the Head Office
In this view by no stretch of imagination the appellants can be considered to be equally placed for treating them at par with the Directorate employees for being treated as being in a common cadre
There is reasonable nexus to differentiate the two cadres
Therefore the classification cannot be said to be arbitrary violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti tution
It is not necessary to burden the judgment with the decisions cited by either counsel as they are not directly or nearer to the core in the case
Accordingly we hold that the appellants are not entitled to be treated at par with the employees working in the respective Directorates for giving direction to the respondents to maintain common seniority between the employees of the Directorate and Subordinate Offices
The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without costs
TNA Appeals dis missed


Summary:
The appellants belonging to the Revenue Department of Gujarat State were allocated to the Panchayat Service when the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 came into force and their allocation became final under section 206A2 of the Act
Thereafter they went on deputation as Circle Inspectors in the State service but were later reverted back to their parent cadre in the Panchayat Service
The appellants challenged their reversion before the High Court which dismissed the petition
Hence this appeal
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
It is clear from section 206A2 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 that a Panchayat servant who is not reallocated within a period of four years from the coming into force of the Act would be deemed to be finally allocat ed to the Panchayat Service
The High Court has held that the appellants have not been able to show that they made any such options before the specified date
Even if the appel lant gave some sort of option the same having not been accepted before the expiry of specified date the appellants stood finally allocated to the Panchayat Service
416B C 2
The appellants being on deputation they could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post
There is no infirmity In the judgment of the High Court
416D