JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the appointment of members of the U.P. Civil Service (Executive) to the post of Regional Transport Officers. Since the questions raised in the two petitions are common we consider it necessary to dispose of both the petitions by a common order. 2. The petitioners are posted as Assistant R.T.O. in the Transport Department of the U. P. Government. In 1969-70 the petitioners appeared at the combined competitive examination held by the Public Service Commission for the State service and from the list of successful candidates some were appointed as Deputy Collectors (Member of the U.P. Civil Services, Executive Branch), Sales Tax Officers, and Assistant R.T.Os. After their selection they were appointed as Assistant R.T.Os. Promotion from the post of Assistant R.T.Os. continued to be made to the post of R.T.Os. The post of R.T.O. is a promotion post which is filled in by promotion of Assistant R.T.Os. and both the posts belong to the same cadre. In 1972 the State Government took a decision to appoint members of the U.P. Civil Service (Executive Branch) to the post of the R.T.Os and in pursuance of that policy the impugned orders were issued appointing the two respondents belonging to the cadre of U.P. Civil Service (Executive) to the post of R.T.Os. The petitioners who were seniormost Assistant R.T.Os. were not promoted to the post of R.T.Os. They thereupon filed these two petitions challenging validity of the appointment of members of the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) to the post of R.T.Os. The petitioners have claimed relief for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing order of the State Government dated December 30, 1972. posting Brij Bhushan Chaturvedi and Suresh Chandra Rastogi, Members of the U. P. Civil Service (Executive Branch) to the post of R.T.Os. The petitioners have further claimed a relief for the issue of a mandamus directing the State Government not to fill up the posts of R.T.Os. by posting members of the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) or any other cadre except that of Assistant Regional Transport Officers. 3. Before we consider the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners it is necessary to refer to certain events which are material for the purpose of determination of the controversy raised in the petition. by posting members of the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) or any other cadre except that of Assistant Regional Transport Officers. 3. Before we consider the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners it is necessary to refer to certain events which are material for the purpose of determination of the controversy raised in the petition. In order to give effect to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder and to regulate the plying of transport vehicles the State Government created a number of posts such as R.T.Os., Assistant R.T.Os. and these Officers were entrusted the duties of carrying out the functions and discharge their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Prior to Dec. 1, 1948, the posts of R.T.Os. and Assistant R.T.Os. were filled by the members of the Civil Service (Executive Branch) and the U. P. Police Service who were posted to those posts on deputation with extra remuneration of Rs. 75 per mensem. It appears that this arrangement did not function well. The then Transport Commissioner made a proposal to the State Government that the posts of Assistant R.T.Os. were specialised which required thorough knowledge of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and he suggested a separate cadre for appointment to the posts of R.T.Os. and Assistant R.T.Os. selection for which could be held through the Public Service Commission. The State Government accepted the proposal of the Transport Commissioner. Consequently recruitment for the post of Assistant R.T.Os. was made through the Public Service Commission and eight persons were selected. The State Government by its order dated November 10, 1948, sanctioned creation of eight posts of R.T.Os. in the scale of Rs. 250-850 at starting salary of Rs. 300 and appointed the eight selected candidates to those posts with a direction that after working for a period of 12 month's they would finally be promoted as Regional Transport Officers. A copy of the Government Order has been filed as Annexure-A to the writ petition. The Government continued with the policy of making direct appointments to the post of Assistant R.T.Os. and then promoting them to the post of R T.Os. Necessary qualifications and conditions of service of these two posts in the transport department were prescribed by the Government Order dated July 18, 1967 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The Government continued with the policy of making direct appointments to the post of Assistant R.T.Os. and then promoting them to the post of R T.Os. Necessary qualifications and conditions of service of these two posts in the transport department were prescribed by the Government Order dated July 18, 1967 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The Government Order clearly stated that the posts of R.T.Os. are promotion posts to be filled from amongst the Assistant R.T.Os. The State Government continued to follow the policy of filling the posts of R.T.Os. by promotion of Assistant Regional Transport Officers. On September 29, 1969, the Secretary of the Transport Department issued a D.O. letter to the then Transport Commissioner directing that the Government had taken a decision to promote the Assistant R. T. Os. mentioned in the letter to the posts of R.T.Os. in order of seniority mentioned therein (Annexure-E to the petition). The name of Devi Prasad Joshi and P.N. Sinha petitioners appeared at Serial Nos. 3 and 4. It appears that in the year 1972, two posts of R.T.Os. fell vacant, the petitioners who were due for promotion to the said posts were not promoted, instead Brij Bhushan Chaturvedi and Suresh Chandra, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who are members of the U. P. Civil Service (Executive Branch) were appointed to the said posts of Regional Transport Officer's. On enquiry the petitioners came to know that a Sub-Committee constituted by the U.P. Cabinet had recommended for the merger of the posts of R.T.Os. and Assistant R.T.Os. with the P.C.S. (Executive) and for appointment of officers of P.C.S. (Executive) to the posts of Assistant R.T.Os. and R.T.Os. It was in pursuance of the report of the sub-committee that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had been appointed to the post of R.T.Os. although the cadre of R.T.Os. and Assistant Regional Transport Officers had not been merged with the P.C.S. (Executive) and the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee had not been enforced. The petitioners thereupon filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the appointments of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as R.T.Os. 4. Learned counsellor the petitioners urged that the posts of R.T.Os. being promotion posts to be filled by the Assistant Regional Transport Officers it was not open the the Government to fill the posts of R.T.Os. by transferring members of the U.P. Civil Service (Executive Branch) to that post. 3 and 4 as R.T.Os. 4. Learned counsellor the petitioners urged that the posts of R.T.Os. being promotion posts to be filled by the Assistant Regional Transport Officers it was not open the the Government to fill the posts of R.T.Os. by transferring members of the U.P. Civil Service (Executive Branch) to that post. The State Governments action is arbitrary without any reason and it is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Learned Standing Counsel urged that instructions contained in the Government orders are administrative in nature, having no force of law, any contravention of those instructions is not actionable in courts. The petitioners have no legal right of promotion to the post of R.T.O. and none of their rights have been violated. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed an behalf of the State Government, it is asserted that by mere administrative practice the Assistant R.T.Os. were promoted to the post of R.T.Os. Such an administrative practice did not confer any right on the Assistant R.T.Os. for promotion to the post of R.T.Os. It has further been pleaded that it is always open to the Government to fill the posts of R.T.Os. from other sources and the Government is not bound to fill those posts by promoting Assistant R.T.Os. Since Government changed its policy it was open to the Governor to alter administrative practice. The Governor having appointed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the past of R.T.Os. should be deemed to have altered the earlier administrative practice. It is further asserted that promotion to the post of R.T.Os. has been made by the Government in accordance with its policy decision taken in the interest of administration as per exigencies of service. Appointment of two members of the U.P. Civil Service does not violate any vested right of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer. 6. As regards the petitioners allegation that a Cobinet Sub-Committee of the Government had made recommendation that the posts of R.T.O. and Assistant R.T.Os. be merged with the P.C.S. (Executive), there is no denial on behalf of the State Government that such a recommendation was made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee. 6. As regards the petitioners allegation that a Cobinet Sub-Committee of the Government had made recommendation that the posts of R.T.O. and Assistant R.T.Os. be merged with the P.C.S. (Executive), there is no denial on behalf of the State Government that such a recommendation was made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee. It is, however, asserted in paragraph 38 of the counter-affidavit of Sri A. S. Srivastava, Section Officer, Transport Department, that question of merger of the then prevailing cadre of Regional Transport Officers and the cadre of Assistant R.T.Os. with the cadre of the U.P. Civil Service is under consideration of the State Government and no final decision in this matter has been taken. On our direction a Joint Secretary of the Transport Department Sri Kanal Tori filed an affidavit in August, 1978, stating that no final decision has been taken on the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee as yet and action is being taken by the Government to frame rules laying down conditions of service of Transport Department, but no final shape of the rules could emerge. Learned Standing Counsel produced files of the State Government also. On a perusal of the same we could not ascertain any positive decision of the Government. It, however, appears that the Cabinet Sub-Committee recommended merger of the cadre of R.T.Os. and Assistant R.T.Os. with P.C.S. (Executive) but the Committee had left the details to be worked out by the other Committee of Officials. Since then the matter has been lying almost unattended and no final decision appears to have been taken in the matter. Meanwhile, the Government has appointed two officers of P.C.S. (Executive) to the posts of R.T.Os. in deviation of the policy of promoting the Assistant R.T.Os. to the posts of R.T.Os. 7. There is no dispute between the parties that no statutory rules as contemplated under the proviso to Article 309 have been framed regulating recruitment and conditions of service of R.T.Os, and Assistant R.T.Os. As noted earlier, the State Government has by administrative orders issued from time to time laid down method of recruitment and conditions of service of these two posts. 75 per cent of the cadre of Assistant R.T.Os. has all along been filled by Public Service Commission through a competitive examination while 25% of the posts were filled by promotion. The posts of R.T.Os. have all along been filled by promotion of the Assistant R.T.Os. 75 per cent of the cadre of Assistant R.T.Os. has all along been filled by Public Service Commission through a competitive examination while 25% of the posts were filled by promotion. The posts of R.T.Os. have all along been filled by promotion of the Assistant R.T.Os. These facts are discernible from the Government Order dated November 10, 1948 and July 18, 1967. These orders contain administrative instructions which have all along regulated the conditions of service and promotion of Assistant R.T.Os. to the post of R.T.Os. An attempt was made in the counter-affidavit and during the course of arguments also to show that Assistant R.T.Os. have no right to promotion to the posts of R.T.Os. but this stand appears to be wholly unsustainable. It is interesting to note that as late as on 2-6-1976 Sri Basant Pandey, Deputy Secretary in the Transport Department, addressed a letter to the Secretary, Public Service Commission, stating very clearly that 75% of the posts in the cadre of Assistant R.T.Os. are filled through Public Service Commission by direct recruitment and 25 per cent are filled by departmental promotion. The letter further stated that the Government has taken a decision that the posts of R.T.Os. shall be filled by promotion of Assistant R.T.Os. These two posts belong to the same service. There is no provision for direct recruitment to the post of R.T.Os., therefore, under Regulation 6 (b) of the U.P. Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) it was not necessary to consult the Commission. The letter stated that criteria for promotion was seniority subject to rejection of unfit and the Commission was requested to approve the Governments policy. From the aforesaid letter it is apparent that the State Government has been following the policy of filling the posts of R.T.Os. by promotions from amongst the Assistant R.T.Os. The State Government has however failed to point out any rationale in changing the policy which has all along been followed since long. As already noted the only reason for the change in policy appears to be in recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, but according to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it is clear that no final decision has been taken by the Government on those recommendation as yet. As already noted the only reason for the change in policy appears to be in recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, but according to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it is clear that no final decision has been taken by the Government on those recommendation as yet. No doubt, it is open to the State Government to accept or not to accept the recommendation of the Sub-Committee and it is not within the realm of this Court to interfere with the policy decision taken by the Government but unless a final decision is taken on the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee it does not stand to reason as to why the officers of the P.C.S. (Executive) have been posted as the R.T.Os. in contravention of the policy as laid down in the Government Orders for filling the posts of R.T.Os. by promotion. 8. It is true that no statutory rules have been framed regulating conditions of service of Assistant and R.T.Os. but it is well settled that in the absence of statutory rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service it is always open to the State Government in exercise of its executive powers to issue executive instructions regulating conditions of service by means of Government orders then it is bound to follow the same uniformly and it is not open to the State Government to take any arbitrary decision in contravention of the policy laid down in the administrative and executive instructions. In Dr. Amarjit Singh, Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 984 : (1975 Lab IC 613) administrative instructions issued by Punjab Government for determining the seniority of Deputy Directors and Assistant Director inter se were considered. The Supreme Court observed that even though the executive instructions did not have the force of law, but the State Government could not at its own sweet will depart from it without rational justification and fix an artificial date for fixing length of continuous service as that would be clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed (at p. 618 of LIC):- "The sweep of Articles 14 and 16 is wide and pervasive. These two articles embody the principle of rationality and they are intended to strike against arbitrary and discriminatory action taken by the State. The Supreme Court observed (at p. 618 of LIC):- "The sweep of Articles 14 and 16 is wide and pervasive. These two articles embody the principle of rationality and they are intended to strike against arbitrary and discriminatory action taken by the State. Where the State Government departs from a principle of seniority laid down by it and the departure is without reason and arbitrary, it would directly infringe the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16." In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam, AIR 1977 SC 2411 : (1977 Lab IC 1923) administrative instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs even though not statutory were held to be binding on the Government. Goswami, J. speaking for the Court observed (at p. 1931 of Lab IC): "These instructions really fill up the yawning gaps in the provision and are embedded in the conditions of service. These are binding on the Government and cannot be followed to the prejudice of the Government servants." In view of the above authorities it is now well settled that in the absence of statutory rules, it is open to the State Government to issue executive instructions regulating conditions of service of Government servants but those executive instructions must be complied with uniformly and the Government servants as well as the State Government both are bound by those executive instructions and it is not open to the State Government to take any action in contravention of the same in an arbitrary manner. As discussed earlier the State Government had issued executive instructions regulating the appointment of R.T.Os. by promotion from amongst the Assistant R.T.Os. and the State Government has acted in contravention of those administrative instructions in appointing members of the U.P. Civil Service Executive Branch to the post of R.T.Os in ignoring the claim of the petitioners who were entitled to promotion. In the absence of any rationale behind the Government action, the order must be held to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution also as it practices discrimination against the petitioners. 9. The learned Chief Standing Counsel urged that since the petitioners had already been promoted to the post of R.T.Os. they are not entitled to any relief in the petition. It is true that during the pendency of these petitions, the petitioners have been promoted to the posts of R.T.Os. 9. The learned Chief Standing Counsel urged that since the petitioners had already been promoted to the post of R.T.Os. they are not entitled to any relief in the petition. It is true that during the pendency of these petitions, the petitioners have been promoted to the posts of R.T.Os. but their promotion is officiating and ad hoc in nature. Since this Court had issued an interim order restraining the State Government from appointing any member of the Civil Service Executive Branch unless the Assistant Regional Transport Officers were also considered for appointment to the U. P. Civil Service Cadre. It appears that due to that interim order petitioners were promoted to the post of R.T.Os. in an officiating capacity on ad hoc basis. In the absence of any positive statement on behalf of the State Government that the posts of R.T.Os. shall be filled by promotion of Assistant R.T.Os. till a final decision is taken on the recommendations made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee, there appears to be no reason to accept the contention that the petitions have been rendered infructuous. 10. For the reasons stated above we hold that the State Governments order appointing the members of the U.P. Civil Service (Executive Branch) to the post of R.T.O. is void and it must be quashed. We order accordingly. The petitioners are further entitled to relief of mandamus directing the respondents not to appoint any member of the U.P. Civil Service (Executive Branch) to the post of R.T.Os. till a final decision is taken in the matter which has been pending before the Government since 1972. The petitioners are entitled to their costs.