Assam Civil Service Officers? Association vs The Union of India

1.Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Dutta, the learned Sr. Advocate representing

the respondent No.9. The learned Sr. Counsel Mr. D. Das appears for the respondent No.8. The State authorities (respondent Nos.4â€"7) are

represented by Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Addl. Advocate General, along with Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam.

The petitioner No.1 is an Association of the Assam Civil Service Officers and along with the General Secretary, they, inter alia, challenge the

recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure-6), for selection of Non-State Civil Service (Non-SCS) officers, for

nomination to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). The petitioners contend that recommendations for the respondent Nos.8 & 9 in the 2006

vacancies, were unmerited, as they respectively served as Additional Commissioner, Industries & Commerce and Joint Commissioner of Taxes and

never served as Deputy Collector or in an equivalent post, which is a mandatory eligibility requirement of Rule 4(1)(iii) of the Indian Administrative

Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as „the Selection Regulation‟).

The Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as „the Recruitment Rules‟) provides for the induction into

the IAS by promotion of those in the State Civil Service and also those who are not the members of the State Civil Service, under Rule 4 of the

Recruitment Rules. The petitioners, who belong to the State Civil Service contend that as per proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Recruitment Rules, the

number of persons to be appointed to IAS from the category of Non-SCS officers at any time, must not exceed 15% of the number of persons

appointed under Rule 8 of the said Rules. In the present case, Â WP(C) 1149/2018 Â since 7 vacancies under Rule 8 for appointment to IAS from

both SCS and NonSCS category is available, only 15% of the available quota is to be filled up from persons belonging to Non-SCS category, which is

no more than 1(one). According to the petitioners, the respondent authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction by earmarking 2(two) posts to be

appointed from Non- SCS category and this has impacted the avenue of promotion, for the State Civil Service officers.

The other key challenge of the petitioners is to the impugned notification dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure-7), whereby, the posts occupied by the short

listed Non-SCS officers were declared to be equivalent to the rank of Deputy Collector of the State Civil Service and such declaration is applied

retrospectively to the jobs, held by the private respondents to give them unmerited promotion to the IAS. Moreover, since this notification of

27.10.2017 (Annexure-7) was issued subsequent to the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 18.09.2017 (Annexure-6), it is projected that the

equivalent declaration made on 27.10.2017 for the private respondents, cannot justify the decision of the Selection Committee, which met earlier on

18.09.2017 (Annexure-6).

Only those officers belonging to Non-SCS category who have completed eight (8) years of continuous service, in a post equivalent to the rank of

Deputy Collector, as on 01.01.2016 (for this case), are eligible for consideration to selection of IAS. But in the instant case, the private respondents at

the time of recommendation made on 18.09.2017 (Annexure-6), by the Selection Committee, were not holding any post equivalent to the post of

Deputy Collector of the SCS. Moreover, even with the equivalence declaration made subsequently on 27.10.2017 (Annexure-7), the concerned

officers must render eight years‟ service in the equivalent post to be eligible. But here, the services of the private respondents in other capacity were

taken into account, to erroneously treat them to be eligible for selection to the IAS.

The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners argues that equivalence of the post has to be notified first, in accordance with the Assam Civil Service

Rules, 1998 but the concerned posts like Superintendent of Taxes and the Joint Director of Industries & Commerce etc. are not shown as post

equivalent to the Deputy Collector in the Schedule-I of the Civil Service Rules. The counsel projects that the respondent Nos.8 & 9 had not served for

8 years as Deputy Collector or in  WP(C) 1149/2018  equivalent posts and therefore, they from the Non-SCS category, are disentitled to be

selected to the IAS cadre.

7.1 On the other hand, Mr. N. Dutta, the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent No.9 submits that jurisdiction of the High Court is excluded

in matters relating to recruitment to all India service and he refers to Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Tribunals Actâ€) to project that the appropriate forum for the aggrieved party is the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and not the Writ

Court.

7.2 The Sr. counsel cites L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and in particular paragraph 93 & 99 of the judgment to

contend that in any matter relating to recruitment to the IAS, it is not open to the litigants to directly approach the High Court by ignoring the CAT and

in cases like this, the Tribunal is the Court of first instance, for the aggrieved party. He relies on this Court‟s judgment in Tajuk Charu Vs. Union of

India reported in 2015(1) GLT 588 to argue that the CAT is the competent forum for this case.

8.1 The learned Sr. counsel Mr. D. Das representing the respondent No.8 while adopting the argument advanced by Mr. N. Dutta, questions the locus

of the association of State Civil Servants to file this writ petition against selection from the Non-SCS category under Rule 8(2) and contends that the

petitioners cannot be an aggrieved party in the selection of the respondent Nos.8 & 9, to the IAS cadre.

8.2 For the respondent No.8, the Sr. counsel further submits that in pursuant to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, Manjula

Saikia Bhuyan (respondent No.8) had joined in the IAS cadre and therefore this Court‟s interim order dated 28.2.2018 should not impact the promoted

incumbent.

Representing the State authorities, Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Addl. Advocate General, adopts the argument of the Sr. counsel Mr. N. Dutta, who

appears for the respondent No.9.

DISCUSSION & DECISION

10.1 The recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to the All India Services are governed by the All-India Administrative Service Act,

1951. The Rule 4(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 WP(C) 1149/2018 Â specifically provides for three modes of

recruitment, viz (a) direct recruitment by competitive examination, (b) by promotion of a substantive member of a State Civil Service and (c) 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 the State Civil Service.

10.2 The Rule 8(1) provides that the Central Government may, on recommendation of the concerned State Government and in consultation with the

Union Public Service Commission, may promote persons from amongst the substantive members of a State Civil Service (SCS) and this segment

covers the writ petitioners.

10.3 The Rule 8(2) of the said Rules further provides that in special circumstances, the Central Government, on recommendation of the

concernedState Government and in consultation with the UPSC, may select any person with outstanding ability and merit serving in connection with

the affairs of the State, who is not a member of the State Civil Service of that State. This envisage promotion of those like the private respondents, in

the Non-SCS category.

10.4 It is further stated that Rule 9(1) of the said Rules provides that the number of persons recruited by way of promotion/selection under Rule 8 in

any state or group of States shall not at any time, exceed 331 /3% of the total cadre strength of the All India Services in that State or to the group of

States.

10.5 The proviso to Rule 9(1) further provides that in any case, the number of persons selected under Rule 8(2) shall not exceed 15% of the number

of posts available for promotion under Rule 8, which is 331 /3% of the cadre strength.

The number of persons to be appointed to the IAS from both categories under the provisions of Rule 8(1) and 8(2) must not exceed 331 /3% of

the total cadre strength of All India Services in that State or group of States. Those to be appointed to the IAS from the category of Non-SCS

officers, cannot exceed 15% of the total quota for both groups, made available under Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules. Only 7 vacancies are available

for promotion under Rule 8 as per the 331 /3% quota for both SCS and Non-SCS category and from this, 15% of the earmarked quota, is to be filled

up [because of cap of 15%, under proviso to Rule 9(1)], from persons belonging to the Non-SCS category. This provision makes  WP(C) 1149/2018

 it clear that appointment of undeserving person from Non-SCS category will certainly impact the aspirations of the members of the petitioners‟

association. Seen from this perspective, the State Civil Service Officers in my perception, can certainly have legitimate grievance and thus their

challenge the recruitment of Non-SCS category, is found to be maintainable. On this basis, the locus standi objection raised by the respondents is

answered against them.

Under the selection norms, the Non-SCS category will be eligible for consideration for selection to the IAS only if, the officer is of outstanding

merit and ability and has rendered continuous service of not less than 8 years in a post, declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State

Civil Service. The eligibility of the officer has to be earned on the first day of year in which, his/her case is being considered. The appointment of Non-

SCS officers to the IAS commenced with the Assam Government circular dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure-5), whereby, the Govt. proposed to consider

promotion of two officers of the Non-SCS category. The recommendation for those who satisfied the eligibility criterion, were to be provided in the

Proforma-I appended to the circular dated 28.02.2017. Besides the general details of the officer, his continuous appointment in a post equivalent to the

post of Deputy Collector of the State Civil Service, was required to be specified at Sl. No.5 of the Proforma.

The 15 names shortlisted from the Non-SCS category, in pursuant to the notice of 28.02.2017 were considered by the Selection Committee in their

meeting held on 18.09.2017 (Annexure-6). Out of the shortlisted 15 names, 10 officers belonging to the Non-SCS category were recommended by the

Selection Committee and the same was then required to be considered by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). But what is of significance

in this recommendation is that neither on 01.01.2006 i.e. relevant date, when the two vacancy in the IAS for the Non-SCS category were available, or

when the Proforma was circulated on 28.02.2017 (Annexure-5) or even on the date, when the Selection Committee made their recommendation on

18.09.2017 (Annexure-6), the recommended incumbents were holding any post, equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector of State Civil Service.

Therefore, it is apparent that the recommended persons were ineligible for consideration for appointment to the IAS, under the applicable norms.

WP(C) 1149/2018 Page 8 of 15

To overcome the above infirmity in the decision making process, the concerned posts held by the 10 recommended officers were subsequently

declared to be equivalent to the rank of Deputy Collector  of State Civil Service by the later notification dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure-7).

Interestingly, this equivalence declaration notification was never circulated nor gazetted but was simply marked to the Chief Secretary of Assam.

Moreover, the concerned Service Rules relating to those posts were not amended nor any amendment was made to the Schedule-I, under Rule 3(2) of

the Assam Civil Service Rules, 1998.

In the above circumstances, it is difficult to comprehend how those officers who have served as Superintendent of Taxes and Joint Director of

Industries & Commerce, could acquire the eligibility norms prescribed by the Regulation which, inter alia, requires the Non-SCS category, to serve

continuously for 8 years in a post equivalent to the Deputy Collector, in the State Civil Service. That apart, the eligibility has to be earned as on

1.1.2016 when the vacancy occurred and therefore, the subsequent declaration of equivalence made on 27.10.2017 cannot retrospectively apply to the

service rendered by the concerned incumbents, in another category of posts.

Viewed in the above context, the subsequent notification of 27.10.2017 (Annexure-7) does appear to be a clumsy attempt by the State, to fill up

the legal lacuna and to confer a semblance of legitimacy for the respondent Nos.8 & 9 although it is apparent that, they never served for 8 years in an

equivalent post of Deputy Collector, on the date of selection i.e. 18.09.2017 (Annexure-6).

The process of recruitment of the Non-SCS category requires that the recommendation of the Selection Committee should be placed before the

UPSC for approval and based upon the finalization of the list by the UPSC, the Central Government has to accord approval to the appointment of the

Non-SCS officer. Thus the procedure of appointment envisages respective role at different segment of the process, for the State Government, the

UPSC and the Central Govt. In this case the primary concern is the equivalence declaration made by the Govt. on 27.10.2017 (Annexure-7) and the

earlier recommendation made by the Selection Committee on 18.09.2017 (Annexure-6) headed by the Chief Secretary of the State, which

recommended the names of 10 Non-SCS category officers, although the concerned incumbents were not holding any post equivalent to the rank of

WP(C) 1149/2018 Â Deputy Collector of the State Civil Service. This makes it apparent that the State authorities carried out a non-bonafide exercise

at the initial stage in the discharge of their segment of responsibility in the decision making process. If the State‟s action at the starting point is not

legitimate, the subsequent stage of the process at the level of the UPSC and the Union Govt. will similarly be tainted for the wrongful foundation.

Let us now examine whether the writ court should entertain this case or whether the CAT is the only forum available for the aggrieved party. In

L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1997)3 SCC 261, the Supreme Court even while declaring that the Tribunals will act as the Court

of first instance in respect of areas of law for which they have been constituted, unequivocally declared that the Tribunals cannot act as substitute for

the High Courts or the Supreme Court. It was also held that the power of juridical review over legislative action, is an integral and essential feature of

the Constitution.

On the issue of appropriate forum, it will bear repeatation that the key challenge here is to the equivalence declaration to posts held by the private

respondents by the impugned notification dated 27.10.2017 Â (Annexure-7). The post of Superintendent of Taxes, held by the respondent No.9, is

governed by the Assam Taxation Service Rules, 1995. Similarly, the Assam Industrial Service Rules, 1997 covers the post of Joint Director of

Industries and Commerce, held by the respondent No.8. As can be seen, the posts which are equivalent to a post in any other cadre, are included in

the Schedule-I of the Assam Civil Service Rules, 1998 and it is apparent that the two posts of the Non-SCS category where the respondent Nos.8 and

9 have served, are not declared to be equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector, in exercise of power under Rule 3(3) of the Assam Civil Service

Rules, 1998. The concerned Service Rules covering those posts held by the respondents, were made in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution of India and undoubtedly they are in the domain of legislative function of the State. Therefore if any change is to be

made to the concerned Service Rules, the role of the State will surely be legislative in character. Logically therefore, even under the ratio of L.

Chandra Kumar (supra), the power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the  WP(C) 1149/2018  Constitution, over

legislative action of the State, cannot in my considered assessment, be ousted in this matter.

Sticking with the issue of jurisdiction, it is also necessary to point out that a jurisdictional fact must exist before a Tribunal or an authority assumes

jurisdiction over a particular matter. When we examine the State‟s action from this perspective, the jurisdiction of the writ court is not ousted and for

such conclusion, this Court can draw support from the ratio in Arun Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2007)1 SCC 732, where the Supreme

Court declared as under:- “……………………..…

A ""jurisdictional fact"" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an Authority assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A

jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an

administrative agency's power to act depends. If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the court, authority or officer cannot act. If a Court or authority

wrongly assumes the existence of such fact, the order can be questioned by a writ of certiorari. The underlying principle is that by erroneously

assuming existence of such jurisdictional fact, no authority can confer upon itself jurisdiction which it otherwise does not possess.

In Halsbury's Laws of England, it has been stated; ""Where the jurisdiction of a tribunal is dependent on the existence of a particular state of

affairs, that state of affairs may be described as preliminary to, or collateral to the merits of, the issue. If, at the inception of an inquiry by an inferior

tribunal, a challenge is made to its jurisdiction, the tribunal has to make up its mind whether to act or not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or

collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive"".

The existence of jurisdictional fact is thus sine qua non or condition precedent for the exercise of power by a court of limited jurisdiction.

…………………………â€​

The adjudication on disputes which arise out of exercise of power by the State in the legislative domain relating to changes in the Service Rules

framed under the proviso to Article 309, should best be decided by the High Court. Even in matters pertaining to recruitment to All India Service,

where the Central Administrative Tribunal is otherwise competent to exercise jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Tribunals Act, 1985, the assumption

of jurisdiction by the Tribunal will have to be preceded by certain acts to be done by the State Government. If those very acts of the State

Government in the domain of  the legislative function, bring an undeserving Non-SCS incumbent, to the arena of  WP(C) 1149/2018  recruitment

to the All India Service and the aggrieved party challenges the State‟s action, the writ court in my considered opinion, would surely be the better

forum to adjudicate on the issue.

The above conclusion on the issue gets support from the ratio in the CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Mishri Lal reported in

(2011)14 SCC 739, where the Apex Court held as follows:- “…………………………..

Rules under Article 309 can be changed even during the subsistence of the old Rules. As held in Raj Kumar vs. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC

1116 (vide para 7), ""Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative in character, and therefore can be given effect to

retrospectively."" Thus, rules under the proviso to Article 309 are Constitutional rules, not like rules under a statute. Hence they have the same force as

a Statute, though made by the executive.………………………….

A rule made under the proviso to Article 309 is a legislative act (though made by the executive). It is not a piece of delegated legislation like a rule

made under a statute. Hence it can be amended  retrospectively. ………………………….â€​

The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternate remedy is a rule of discretion and is not one of compulsion. In an

appropriate case, even when an alternative remedy or forum is available, a writ court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review and

three contingencies of such nature are highlighted by the Supreme Court in M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Jahan

Khan reported in (2007)10 SCC 88. Taking a cue from this, in cases where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, the writ court‟s

intervention even in matter pertaining to recruitment to All India Civil Service cannot automatically be ousted. Here, the State Government has decided

to confer undue benefit to the Non-SCS category incumbents and the consequential process of recruitment to the IAS proceeds only on the basis of

the State Government decision in the realm of the State‟s legislative domain. In matters like this, the more appropriate forum in my understanding is

not the Tribunal but the writ court.Â

The number of persons to be appointed to IAS from the category of NonSCS officers at any time must not exceed 15% of the number of persons

 WP(C) 1149/2018 appointed under Rule 8 read with the proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Recruitment Rules. In the present case the total vacancy under

Rule 8 from both SCS and NonSCS category is 7 and thus only 1(one) post becomes available for the Non-SCS category. But since two posts for the

Non-SCS category is made available, the respondent authorities have exceeded its jurisdiction by earmarking more than one post, to be appointed from

the Non-SCS category. Â

It is also important to bear in mind that notification dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure-7) was neither circulated nor was gazetted notwithstanding its far

reaching consequences. The equivalence declaration  ade by this notification is clearly intruding into legislative domain and the respondent No.6 as

the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personnel (A) Department had neither the competence nor the authority, to announce that the posts held by the

private respondents should be considered to be equivalent to Deputy Collector‟s post. In fact the declaration is construed retrospectively for the

private respondents, to confer unmerited benefit. This reflects a non-bonafide exercise by the State authorities.

The learned Sr. Counsel Mr. N. Dutta had relied on Tajuk Charu Vs. Union of India reported in 2015(1) GLT 588 to contend that in a matter

pertaining to recommendation of Non-SCS Officers from Arunachal Pradesh for promotion to IAS, the Tribunal alone has the jurisdiction, being the

Court of first instance. But this verdict of the learned Single Judge in my opinion is distinguishable in as much as, the eligibility of the respondents

belonging to the Non-SCS category in Tajuk Charu (supra), was not in question. Therefore in the present facts, the ratio of Tajuk Charu (supra) will

not come in the way of exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court.

Having answered the jurisdictional issue against the respondents, it is necessary now to examine whether the interim order passed by this Court on

28.02.2018 should be vacated or continued since the beneficiaries of the recommendations i.e. the respondent Nos.8 and 9 have applied for recall of

the interim order. The subject matter of the challenge here relates to the decisions of the State Government, the UPSC and the Central Government.

But we cannot overlook that the action of one entity, is intricately connected with the other. The declaration of equivalence made by the State through

the notification dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure-7) is inseparable from and is closely inter-linked with the  WP(C) 1149/2018  other issues raised in the

writ petition. The members of the petitioners‟ association belong to the Assam Civil Service and their recruitment and conditions of service is

regulated by the Assam Civil Service Rules, 1998. The respondent No.8 is a member of the Industries department and his service is regulated by the

Assam Industries Service Rules, 1997. Likewise, the respondent No.9 serves in the Taxation department and his service is regulated by the Assam

Taxation Service Rules, 1995. The concerned Service Rules relating to the rival litigants were all framed in exercise of powers conferred under the

proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Those Service Rules came into force from their respective dates of publication in the official

Gazette, in terms of the provisions contained in those Rules, which as earlier noted, are legislative in character.

The impugned notification of 27.10.2017 seek to confer equivalence to 8 different posts under separate departments of the Assam Government, to

the post of Deputy Collector. The concerned posts are not within the State Civil Service as defined in Rule 2(g) of the Indian Administrative Service

(Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and clause 2(j) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and their conditions of

service are governed and regulated by different sets of Service Rules framed by the Assam Government, in exercise of powers under proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

The fact that different Service Rules govern the service status of the respondents, was wholly disregarded when the equivalence notification was

issued on 27.10.2017 which seeks to change the status of posts, born in different Service Rules. Such attempt amount to amendment of the conditions

of service of those officers and the posts. That apart, the amendment in the Service Rules must be circulated and published in the official Gazette and

the absence of publication of the notification of 27.10.2017 (Annexure-7) in the official Gazette or its noncirculation,make the equivalence declaration,

legally impotent. For such conclusion we get support from the ratio in Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited Vs. Union of India reported in (2014)10

SCC 673, where the Supreme Court in paragraph 24, had declared as follows:- “………………………

It will not be necessary to notice the long line of decisions reiterating the aforesaid view. So far as the mode of publication is concerned, it has

been consistently held by this Court that such mode must be as prescribed by the statute. Â WP(C) 1149/2018 Â In the event the statute does not

contain any prescription and even under the subordinate legislation there is silence in the matter, the legislation will take effect only when it is published

through the customarily recognized official channel, namely, the official gazette (B.K. Srivastava vs. State of Karnataka)[(1987)1 SCC658].

Admittedly, the ‘guidelines’ were not gazetted. …………………………….â€​

The notification of 27.10.2017 (Annexure-7) which purports to declare equivalence of posts held by the respondents to the rank of Deputy

Collector of the State Civil Service, was never circulated or notified in the official Gazette. Most pertinently, the equivalence declaration was made

well after the recommendation of the Selection Committee which met on 18.09.2017 (Annexure-6). Therefore, the eligibility requirement for

appointment to the IAS of persons in the Non-SCS category, in so far as the respondents are concerned, was never satisfied, when the Selection

Committee made the recommendation on 18.09.2017 (Annexure-6). None of the Non-SCS category officers satisfied the essential condition of

eligibility of not less than 8 years‟ continuous service as on 01.01.2016, in a post equivalent to the Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service. In such

backdrop, the Officers in the State Civil Service can certainly have a bonafide grievance relating to the Assam Government‟s decision on equivalence

of posts. The aggrieved party in these situation will have the right to approach the High Court to challenge the impugned notification dated 27.10.2017

(Annexure-7). The consequence of the decision of the State Government may lead to entry of the recommended person in the All India Service, but

this by itself will not confer exclusive jurisdiction to the learned CAT to adjudicate on the subject matter of the challenge and the power of judicial

review of the writ court will certainly be available.

On the basis of the material that have been considered, the prima facie view of this Court is that the State authorities wanted to confer undue

benefit to the private respondents of the Non-SCS category  through an illegal process and this resulted in prejudice to the members of the Assam

Civil Service Officers‟ Association in their aspiration for induction to the IAS.

Following the above analysis and discussion and having regard to the fact that the private respondents were ineligible for recruitment to the IAS on

the date when the posts became vacant i.e. 01.01.2006 or even on the date of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee on 18.09.2017, I

am of the WP(C) 1149/2018 Â considered opinion that the respondent Nos.8 and 9 have failed to make out any case for recall of the interim order.

Accordingly, the interim order passed by this Court on 28.02.2018 is ordered to continue, during the pendency of the case. With this order, the I.A.

(Civil) Nos.1148/2018 and 956/2018 stand dismissed.

Following the above interim conclusion, as the counter affidavit is yet to be filed by the State, the Assam Government should now explain, what

prompted them to act in the manner they did. The State must disclose how the concerned incumbents in the Non-SCS group, were assessed to be of

special category (of outstanding merit and ability in comparison with other Non-SCS officers), who deserve entry to the IAS, although they were not

holding the equivalent level post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service. The reason why the notification dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure-7) was

never circulated or gazetted, must also be disclosed. How the equivalence declaration can retrospectively satisfy the eligibility requirement of 8 years

continuous service as Deputy Collector should also be explained by the State. These and other facets of this challenge, should be responded through a

counter affidavit, in the next 4(four) weeks.Â