JUDGMENT : S. Obul Reddi, J. The only question that arises in this Special Civil Application for the issue of a writ of quo warranto against the first respondent, M. D. Patel, Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Gujarat, is whether his appointment as Secretary to the Government Public Works Department, was made by the Government of Gujarat, respondent No. 2, in contravention of the Indian Administrative Service Rules. 2. The relevant facts necessary for determining the question involved are these. The first respondent was initially appointed as an Executive Engineer and subsequently promoted as Superintending Engineer, Deputy Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department. As Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department, he was responsible for the execution of various works consisting of several departments like construction of roads and buildings, minor, medium and major irrigation projects, electrification, refrigeration, air-conditioning etc. The Department of Public Works has three wings, namely, Roads and Buildings; Irrigation and Electrical. M. D. Patel, the first respondent, was appointed to officiate as Secretary, Public Works Department, by a Resolution of the State Government dated July 30, 1975. The State Government, by the said Resolution, accorded sanction to the creation of an ex-cadre post of Secretary, Public Works Department, in the scale of Rs. 2,500-125/2-2750 for a period of six months. Till his appointment on July 31, 1975 to the newly created post, it was a cadre post. It is for that reason that the Government resolved by its order dated July 29, 1975, Annexure 'C' to direct 'that the post of Secretary to Government, Public Works Department which is a post included in the Cadre Schedule of the State IAS Cadre, should be held in abeyance for a period of six months from the date' on which M. D. Patel took charge of that post. The petitioner does not belong to the Indian Administrative Service nor does he belong to any of the Engineering Services of the Public Works Department. He is a Manager, Grade II, of the Circuit House, which is under the control of the Public Works Department. Though he is not in any way affected by the appointment of M.D. Patel as Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, he has chosen to question the appointment on the ground that the appointment runs contrary to the All India Service Rules governing the Indian Administrative Service. Though he is not in any way affected by the appointment of M.D. Patel as Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, he has chosen to question the appointment on the ground that the appointment runs contrary to the All India Service Rules governing the Indian Administrative Service. He, therefore, asked for the issue of a writ of quo warranto on the ground that he has illegally usurped the office of Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, which is reserved for an officer of the Indian Administrative Service. 3. This petition is resisted by M. D. Patel, the State of Gujarat and the Union of India. They have all filed affidavits-in-reply denying the various allegations made by the petitioner in this petition. It is the common case of the respondents that the appointment of M. D. Patel is not contrary to the Indian Administrative Service Rules nor is there any encroachment upon the reservation of posts of Secretaries to Government meant for the officers of the Indian Administrative Service persons. 4. Since the question involved depends solely upon the construction of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, we may refer to the relevant Rules. 'Cadre officer' is defined to mean a member of the Indian Administrative Service. 'Cadre post' means any of the posts specified under Item I of each cadre in the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955. "State Government concerned" in relation to a joint cadre, means the Joint Cadre Authority. By virtue of R. 4, the cadre strength and composition of each cadre constituted under R. 3 is determined by Regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments. The Central Government is empowered, at the interval of every three years, to re-examine the strength and composition of each such cadre in consultation with the State Government and may make such alterations as it may deem fit. The first proviso to sub-rule (2) of R. 4 empowers the Central Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre at any time during the period of three years. The first proviso to sub-rule (2) of R. 4 empowers the Central Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre at any time during the period of three years. The second proviso says that the State Government concerned may add for a period not exceeding one year and with the approval of the Central Government for a further period not exceeding two years, to a State or Joint Cadre one or more posts carrying duties or responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts. Rule 7 deals with postings. All appointments to cadre posts shall be made (a) in the case of a State Cadre by the State Government; and (b) in the case of a Joint Cadre, by the State Govt. concerned (sic). Rule 8 makes it obligatory, except as otherwise provided in the Rules, that every cadre post shall be filled by a cadre officer. Rule 9 enables a State Government to appoint to a cadre post, a person who is not a cadre officer. R. 9 reads- "9. Temporary appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre posts:- (1) A cadre post in a State may be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer if the State Government is satisfied- (a) that the vacancy is not likely to last for more than three months or (b) that there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy. (2) Where in any State a person other than a cadre officer is appointed to a cadre post for a period exceeding three months, the State Government shall forthwith report the fact to the Central Government together with the reasons for making the appointment. (3) On receipt of a report under sub-rule (2) or otherwise, the Central Government may direct that the State Government shall terminate the appointment of such person and appoint thereto a cadre officer, and where any direction is so issued, the State Government shall accordingly give effect thereto. (3) On receipt of a report under sub-rule (2) or otherwise, the Central Government may direct that the State Government shall terminate the appointment of such person and appoint thereto a cadre officer, and where any direction is so issued, the State Government shall accordingly give effect thereto. (4) "Where a cadre post is likely to be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer for a period exceeding six months, the Central Government shall report the full facts to the Union Public Service Commission with the reasons for holding that no suitable officer is available for filling the post and may in the light of the advice given by the Union Public Service Commission give suitable direction to the State Government concerned." Rule 10 makes it obligatory on the part of the State Government to report to the Central Government of vacant cadre posts- "10. Cadre posts shall not be kept vacant or held in abeyance for periods exceeding six months without the approval of the Central Government. For this purpose, the State Government shall make a report to the Central Government in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) the reasons for the proposal; (b) the period for which the State Government proposes to keep the post vacant or hold it in abeyance; (c) the provision, if any, made for the existing incumbent of the post; and (d) whether it is proposed to make any arrangements for the performance of the duties of the post to be kept vacant or held in abeyance, and if so the particulars of such arrangements." The Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955 prescribe the cadre strength for each of the States as specified in the Schedule. For the State of Gujarat the cadre strength is 84 and out of them, to the extent relevant, the following posts are reserved for cadre officers:- Chief Secretary to Government 1 Additional Chief Secretary to Government. 1 Special Secretary to Government 1 Chief Electoral Officer 1 Development Commissioner 1 Industries Commissioner 1 Joint/Deputy Secretaries to Government. For the State of Gujarat the cadre strength is 84 and out of them, to the extent relevant, the following posts are reserved for cadre officers:- Chief Secretary to Government 1 Additional Chief Secretary to Government. 1 Special Secretary to Government 1 Chief Electoral Officer 1 Development Commissioner 1 Industries Commissioner 1 Joint/Deputy Secretaries to Government. 19 Collectors 18 District Development Officers 17 Secretary to Governor 1 Secretary to Chief Minister 1 The scheme of the Rules to the extent referred to above is to see that the cadre posts reserved as shown in the Schedule are not filled in by officers not belonging to the cadre except for unavoidable reasons for short periods of three months or six months, as the case may be. What has to be seen now is, whether in filling the post of Secretary, Public Works Department, the State Government has acted in violation of the said Rules and Regulations. 5. Mr. Tanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Central Government had not de-reserved the cadre post of Secretary, Public Works Department, and there is nothing in the affidavits-in-reply to suggest that the continuance of the first respondent in the post of Secretary. Public Works Department, is with the prior sanction of the Central Government and is in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. 6. An Under-Secretary to the Government of India in the Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, in his affidavit-in-reply has stated that only eight posts of Secretaries to Government "are borne on the Gujarat Cadre of the Indian Administrative Service". The posts of Secretaries, according to him, are not assigned to specific departments. It is also pointed out by him that the post of Secretary. Public Works Department, was held in abeyance by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of R. 10 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules. 1954 for a period of six months from August 1, 1975 and respondent No. 1 was appointed to the State Service post of Secretary, Public Works Department created by the State Government for a conterminous period. 1954 for a period of six months from August 1, 1975 and respondent No. 1 was appointed to the State Service post of Secretary, Public Works Department created by the State Government for a conterminous period. The State Government had submitted a proposal to the Central Government that the post of Secretary to Government which was till then held by a cadre officer be held in abeyance (sic) be deleted from the Indian Administrative Service Cadre Schedule of Gujarat so that "the arrangement of placing the State Public Works Department in the charge of Technical Officer might be adopted as a permanent measure". It is further submitted by him- "However, the need to keep any cadre post in abeyance beyond 1-1-1976 did not subsist because, as stated by the State Government in paragraphs 4 and 5 of their affidavit, all the 8 cadre posts of Secretary have been filled by IAS Officers as on 1-1-1976." There is a further averment by the Union Government that the first respondent had not been appointed to a cadre post though the State Government had initially kept a cadre post in abeyance in terms of the provisions of R. 10 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. 7. The State Government has denied that the Secretary to a Government Department has necessarily to be from the Indian Administrative Service. It is the case of the State Government that all that is necessary under the Rules and the Regulations is that eight posts of Secretaries in the Secretariat should be filled in by cadre officers and there is no assignment of departments as such to cadre officers. It may be first seen whether the initial appointment of first respondent was bad before we go to the next question whether he is illegally occupying the post reserved for a cadre officer. 8. The rules provide a non-cadre officer being appointed to a cadre post for a period of three months by reporting the same to the Central Government. It would be extended to a period of six months subject to the approval of the Union Public Service Commission. By a Resolution of the Government of Gujarat dated July 29, 1975, the post of Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, which was a post included in the Cadre Schedule of the State Indian Administrative Service Cadre was held in abeyance for a period of six months. By a Resolution of the Government of Gujarat dated July 29, 1975, the post of Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, which was a post included in the Cadre Schedule of the State Indian Administrative Service Cadre was held in abeyance for a period of six months. The affidavit filed by the Undersecretary to Central Government goes to show that the Centre's permission was asked for and that it had informed that there was no need to keep this particular cadre post in abeyance beyond January 1, 1976 as all the eight cadre posts of Secretary were filled by Indian Administrative Service Officers. The initial appointment of the first respondent was, therefore, undoubtedly in accordance with the Rules. 9. Mr. Tanna has placed strong reliance on the Rules and Regulations to contend that once the post is reserved for a cadre officer, unless it is de-reserved, no non-cadre officer can be appointed to that post. We are unable to agree with Mr. Tanna in so far as the reservation of posts of Secretaries to Government is concerned. All that the State Government has to comply with is to fill in the eight posts of Secretaries to Government by posting cadre officers to those posts. Now where in the Rules or Regulations do we get that when there are more departments than eight, all the departments should be manned only by cadre officers. If the Rules or the Regulations prescribe that all posts of Secretaries to Government should be filled by cadre officers, then we can understand the argument that a non-cadre officer cannot be posted to fill a post of Secretary to Government. For instance, there are 19 posts reserved for Joint/Deputy Secretary to Government. The permanent strength of Joint/Deputy Secretary to Government is not 19 but 23. Four posts of the Joint/Deputy Secretary to Government are held by officers not belonging to the cadre. The posts of Joint/Deputy Secretary to Government are not reserved Department wise so as to say that a cadre officer holding the post of a Joint/Deputy Secretary in Home Department cannot be posted as Joint/Deputy Secretary to Government in Agriculture Department, a post held by a non-Indian Administrative Service Officer. It is for the State Government to decide which Departmental Secretary should be a cadre officer and which Departmental Secretary should be a non-cadre officer. It is for the State Government to decide which Departmental Secretary should be a cadre officer and which Departmental Secretary should be a non-cadre officer. So long as the quota fixed under the Regulations is not exceeded by the State Government, there can be no cause for complaint. It is for this reason that the Central Government and the State Government have averred that all the eight cadre posts reserved for Secretaries under the Regulations have been filled by Indian Administrative Service Officers. It would be within the limits of authority of the State Government to decide when there are more than eight Departments, having regard to the requirement of technical, professional or special knowledge in a particular Department, whether the Secretary's post should be given to an Indian Administrative Service Officer or a non-Indian Administrative Service Officer. The first respondent is a technical man who had varied experience in the Engineering Department and his professional skill and special knowledge, the Government felt, should be utilised in the Secretariat by appointing him as Secretary to the Public Works Department. It is not a case of putting a square peg in a round hole or a round peg in a square hole so as to contend that he will not fit in and will not be capable of handling the Department to which he has been posted. It is the prerogative of the State Government to re-allocate business amongst the various Departments, to create as many departments as may be necessary for the efficient administration and governance of the State and when the State Government resolves that in order to improve the efficiency in a particular Department of the Secretariat, a person with special qualifications like scientific or technical knowledge, with vast experience is required, it would be perfectly justified in appointing a non-cadre officer so long as the Government does not encroach upon the reservation made to the cadre officers in the senior posts under the State Government. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there has been no violation or infringement of the Cadre Rules or the Regulations to justify the grievance that the first respondent has usurped a cadre post without the authority of law. 10. The petitioner has levelled reckless allegations against the first respondent in the petition without regard to truth or facts. Mr. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there has been no violation or infringement of the Cadre Rules or the Regulations to justify the grievance that the first respondent has usurped a cadre post without the authority of law. 10. The petitioner has levelled reckless allegations against the first respondent in the petition without regard to truth or facts. Mr. Tanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has fairly submitted that he does not choose to press those allegations. The allegations of this nature are made very freely without regard to truth. They are more often easily made than proved and when it comes to the question of proof, there will be nothing to substantiate. 11. In the result the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Though this is a case where we should award costs to the first respondent, we are not inclined to award costs by reason of the fact that the petitioner happens to be a Class III Government servant. Petition dismissed.