Pathak, C.J. (Actg.)- This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.80 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 124 of 1978, allowing the writ peti­tion of the respondent. 2. In that writ petition the respondent impugned the order dated 28.3.78 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh appointing him as Director of Rehabilitation and Settlement, Government of Arunachal Pradesh while he was serving in the I.A.S. Carde post of Deputy Secretary (P&D) and Ex-officio Secretary (Education). It has been alleged in the petition that the aforesaid impugned appointment order was consequent upon non-inclusion of his name in the list of State Civil Service members suitable for the Indian Administrative Service, for short the Select List, and it has been prayed for a mandamus to restore his name in the Select List or in the alternative for the issue of certiorari quashing the entire Select List itself for the year 1978. The aforesaid proceeding leading to the present appeal arose in the following way. The respondent was appointed temporarily as an Assistant Political Officer Grade II vide NEFA Adminis­tration Notification No. GO. 8/55 dated 19.9.55 and was confir­med in that post with effect from 1.9.58. This post was subse­quently re-designated as Extra Assistant Commissioner. By Notifica­tion No. NFS. 2/71-F dated 18.5.71 the respondent was appointed to officiate on an adhoc and purely temporary basis until further orders as]'Additional Deputy Commissioner. The appointment had to be made in the public interest since no I.A.S./I.F.A.S. cadre officer was available for filling the said vacancy. By Memo No. 11/21/71- NEFA dated 18.6.71 Government of India, sanc­tioned this appointment under Rule 8(b) of the I.F.A.S. Rules 1956. Later, the Government of India, by the Indian Adminis­trative Service (Fixation of Cadre strength) Sixth Amendment Regulation, 1972 made under Section 3(1) of the All India Ser­vices Act, 1951 read with rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules 1954, included the posts of Additional Deputy Secretaries and Secretaries among the posts under the Arunachal Pradesh Administration. By Government of India Arunachal Pradesh Notification No. NFS. 14/72, the Chief Com­missioner of Arunachal Pradesh appointed the respondent whose name was borne on the Select List for promotion to I.A.S. (U.T.) cadre posts under Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 with effect from 26.11.73 with the approval of the Government of India. By Government of India Arunachal Pradesh Notification No. NFS. 14/72, the Chief Com­missioner of Arunachal Pradesh appointed the respondent whose name was borne on the Select List for promotion to I.A.S. (U.T.) cadre posts under Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 with effect from 26.11.73 with the approval of the Government of India. While the respondent continued to serve in that capacity, by Government of India Notification No. U. 14016/32/72-UTS dated 1st February, 1974 the respondent was appointed to officiate as Additional Deputy Commissioner and to officiate as Deputy Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Admi­nistration with effect from 26.11.73 until further orders. The respondent was also ordered to take over as Ex-officio Secretary (Education), with effect from 20.9.76 in addition to his own duties during the absence of that incumbent on leave. He was further ordered to take over as Director of Public Instruction with effect from 1.1.77 in addition to his own duties. Thus, according to the respondent, he had been continuously officiating in I.A.S. (UT) cadre posts from 9.10.72 till 3.11.78 and his name was borne in the annual Select Lists for promotion to I.A.S. (UT) cadre from 1.10.73 to 14.3.78. 3. However, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh by its Memo No. Apptt/161/75 dated 31.3.76 drew up a departmental proceeding against the respondent who filed his written statement in defence. On receipt of the enquiry report dated 19.11.77, the respondent submitted a representation against it to the Lt. Governor, Arunachal Pradesh on 22.2.78. The annual Selection Committee met on 30.12.77 and in the Select List prepared by the said Committee, the name of the respondent did not find place. It was contended by the respondent that consequent upon the non-inclusion of his name in the Select List, the impugned order appointing the respondent as Director of Rehabilitation and Sett­lement was passed. On 29.3.78 the respondent submitted a repre­sentation vide No. PF/MML/78 to the Lt. Governor contending that his name could not be so removed from the Select List. However, he was informed by the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh that on being consulted the Ministry of Home Affairs intimated that the Select List had to be reviewed and revised every year and that during the course of the annual review his name did not find place 'in the current Select List. Being aggrie­ved, the present writ petition has been filed by the respondent. 4. Being aggrie­ved, the present writ petition has been filed by the respondent. 4. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh in its counter-affidavit have averred, inter alia, that the petitioner had to be appointed in the IAS post because at that time no IAS/IFAS. Cadre officer was available for filling up the vacancy and it was stated in the order of such appointment that the appointment was "subject to the condition that when the Government of India makes available the IAS (UT)/IFAS. cadre officer for the post he shall forthwith revert to his original post of E.A C. NEFA, As such, this order does not either create or confer any right upon the petitioner." It has been further averred that functio­ning as Director of Public Instruction for a short period and the ex-officio Secretary of the Education Department would not confer any right upon the petitioner, those assignments being in addition to his own duties. It has also been stated that the Union Government intim­ated that the petitioner's name had been discontinued from the I.A.S. Select List and as such his officiating appointment had to be discontinued and accordingly he was reverted back to his permanent cadre, that is, A.P.C.S. Class I, and posted as the Director of Rehabilitation and Settlement in the Selection Grade scale. It has also been averred that the inclusion of the res­pondent's name in the Select List never conferred any right whatsoever and the respondent could not therefore be said to have suffered any legal injury for non-inclusion of his name in the Select List for the year 1978. It has further been averred that the respondent could not claim not claim continuation in the officiating appointment unless his name was put in the Select List for that year. 5. The Union of India ii a separate counter-affidavit and rejoinder have generally stated that the temporary appointment of the respondent did not confer any right on him. His name was not included in the Select List approved by the Union Public Service Commission on 14.3.78 as the Selection Commi­ttee did not think it proper after viewing all pros and cons, to put the respondent's name in the select list at the time of annual revision. His name was not included in the Select List approved by the Union Public Service Commission on 14.3.78 as the Selection Commi­ttee did not think it proper after viewing all pros and cons, to put the respondent's name in the select list at the time of annual revision. It has been stated that the dropping of the name of the respondent did not amount to punishment even though the respondent continued to officiate in the I.A.S. Cadre post for many years. The respondent's officiation had been appro­ved under Rule 9(4) of the I.A.S. Cadre Rules only for the period from 11.10.73 to 23.6.76 as was evident from the letter of Home Ministry No. U-14020/34/76-UTS dated 8.7.77. It is averred that continuation in officiating capacity conferred no right upon the respondent to continue to officiate in I.A.S. cadre post beyond that period unless his name was put in the Select List. It has been stated that the respondent having acquired no right, did not lose any right whatsoever and Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not attracted. It has been further stated that sub-Regulation (7) of Regulation 5 of I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 which reads : "If in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed super session." had been omitted and in the amended Regulation at the time there was no provision for recording reasons for of name of officer in the list prepared by the Selection Committee and it was not necessary for the Selection Committee to record reasons for the discontinuance or non-in­clusion of the name of any officer in the Select List and there could be no question of any intimation, to the officer concerned, of the reasons for discontinuance or non-inclusion of his name in the Select List. It has been stated that no one can claim, ask or demand the Selection Committee to put his name in the Select List. It is averred that the respon­dent's name had been left out after considering the pros and cons of the service-records, his performance was considered and as such the allegation of malafide made by the respondent has been denied. It is averred that the respon­dent's name had been left out after considering the pros and cons of the service-records, his performance was considered and as such the allegation of malafide made by the respondent has been denied. It has further been stated that Articles 14 and 16 were not attracted as the respondent did not have any right to continue in the list. The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, in his counter affidavit stated that for the year 1977 the Selection Committee sat on 30.12.77 and the proceedings were contained in nine pages. As the proceedings were unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State and the submission of the said records of the proceedings could cause injuries to to public interest, and he claimed privilege on grounds of public interest taking aid of Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act. However, it is found from the impugned judgment that at the time of hearing the learned counsel for the State placed copies of the proceedings for the years 1973, 1975, 1976 and 1977 before the Court and the Court looked into the proceedings of the year 1977 only and the counsel for the respondent was also allowed to look into the same. 6. In the rejoinder to the additional affidavit in reply the Arunachal Pradesh Government admitted that the integrity cer­tificate of the petitioner was withheld by the Government be­cause there was a disciplinary proceeding pending against him on charge of a grave nature and the withholding was done in conformity with the Govt. of India's letter No. 17/3/70 AIS (111) dated 26.6.70. The aforesaid letter reads : "As regards the officers against whom enquiries are pen­ding, the integrity certificate should not ipso facto be withheld. The State Government should examine each case with reference to the nature and gravity of the charges, the evidence available on the basis of the investigation made up to that time, the known arguments of defence if any, the views of the Head of the Department, the general reputation of the officers etc. The State Government should examine each case with reference to the nature and gravity of the charges, the evidence available on the basis of the investigation made up to that time, the known arguments of defence if any, the views of the Head of the Department, the general reputation of the officers etc. and then decide whether they would like to include him in the list of officers, whose integrity is certified or the list of officers in respect of whom integrity certificate is withheld." The Government does not say that the integrity certificate was withheld on ground of any adverse remark in Annual Con­fidential Report for 1976 which the respondent says was not communicated to him before the meeting. It is accordingly an admitted fact that considering the nature and gravity of the charges in the disciplinary proceeding against the respondent started on 31.3.76 the integrity certificate was withheld. It was found by the learned Single Judge that later the disciplinary authority having considered the enquiry report dated 19.11.77 decided to impose a major penalty against which an appeal is still pending. 7. On various contentions and submissions made by the parties, the learned Single Judge set out the following precise questions for decision. (1) Whether the non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Select List is violative of the provisions of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promo­tion) Regulation, 1955 (shortly, 'the Regulation')? (2) Whether, the Regulation apart, the non-inclusion was bad in law being violative of the principles of natural justice? and (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a restoration of his name into the select list of quashing of the list and to consequential benefits? All the above three questions were answered in affirmative by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal. 8. It is found from the record that the Respondent was appointed under Rule 9 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules. It is also not disputed that his name continued in that post from 9.7.72 to 28.3.78. His name was in the select list from 1973 to 30.12.77, an which date the Selection Committee omitted his name under the provisions of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulation, 1955. The relevant provisions whereof provide as follows : "5. It is also not disputed that his name continued in that post from 9.7.72 to 28.3.78. His name was in the select list from 1973 to 30.12.77, an which date the Selection Committee omitted his name under the provisions of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulation, 1955. The relevant provisions whereof provide as follows : "5. Preparation of a list of suitable officers: (1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet at interval not exceeding one year and prepare a list of such mem­bers of the State Civil Service as are held by them to be suitable for promotion to the Service. The num­ber of members of the State Civil Service included in the list shall not be more than twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of the period of twelve months, commencing from the date of preparation of the list, in the posts available for them under rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, or 10 per cent of the Senior posts shown against items 1 and 2 of the cadre schedule of each State or group of States, whichever is greater; ** ** ** (4) The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as 'Outstanding', 'Very good', 'Good' or 'Unfit' as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their service records. (5) The list shall be prepared by including the required number of names, first from amongst the officers finally classified as 'Outstanding', then from amongst those similarly classified as 'Very good' and thereafter from amongst those similarly classified as 'Good' and the order of names inter se within each category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Civil Service. (Under this sub-regulation as substituted on 3.6.77, the names of officers included in the list shall be arranged in order of seniority in the State Civil Service provided that any junior officer who in the opinion of the Comm­ittee is of exceptional merit and suitability may be assigned a place in the list higher than all officers senior to him). (6) The list so prepared shall be reviewed and revised every year. 6. (6) The list so prepared shall be reviewed and revised every year. 6. Consultation with the Commission :- This list prepared in accordance with Regulation 5 shall then be forwarded to the Commission by the State Government along with- (i) the records of all members of the State Civil Service included in the list; (ii) the records of all members of the State Civil Ser­vice who are proposed to be superseded by the recommendations made in the list; (iii) the reasons as recorded by the Committee for the proposed supersession of any member of the State Civil Service; and (iv) the observation of the State Government on the recommendation of the Committee. 7. Select List :- (1) The Commission shall consider the list prepared by the Committee along with the other documents received from the State Government and, unless it considers any change necessary, approve the list. (2) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any change in the list received from the State Govern­ment, the Commission shall inform the State Govern­ment of the changes proposed and after taking into account the comments, if any, of the State Govern­ment, may approve the list finally with such modifi­cation, if any, as may in its opinion, be just and proper. (3) The list as finally approved by the Commission shall form the Select List of the members of the State Civil Service." From a perusal of the records, it is found that the Selec­tion Committee meeting was held on 30.12.77 and it is appa­rent that it examined the records of the officers included in Annexure I to the Writ petition, which contains 105 names, petitioner's name being No. 1. The Committee assessed them as shown against their names. Against the petitioner the assess­ment was 'Good' while 24 others were assessed as 'Very good'. The total to be included in the Select List was determined at 24 under Regulation 5(1). All those assessed as 'Very good' were Included in the Select List as suitable in all respects for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. The Commi­ttee was satisfied from the remarks in the confidential reports of the officers selected for inclusion in the list that there was nothing against their integrity. It is found by the learned Single Judge that no reason was recorded as to why the petitioner, whose name appeared as No. 1, was proposed to be superseded. The Commi­ttee was satisfied from the remarks in the confidential reports of the officers selected for inclusion in the list that there was nothing against their integrity. It is found by the learned Single Judge that no reason was recorded as to why the petitioner, whose name appeared as No. 1, was proposed to be superseded. The learned Single Judge observed that it may not be reasona­ble to how that the petitioner had any right to notice to show cause at that stage. After the Select List is prepared by the Selection Commi­ttee, the State Government sends the same to the Public Service Commission for approval. Regulation 6(iii) requires that the reasons as recorded by the Committee for the proposed super­session of any member of the Civil Service be forwarded to the Commission by the State Government. It had been con­tended on behalf of the Respondent that as no reason was recorded by the Select Committee, there was nothing upon which the Public Service Commission could consider for the non-inclu­sion of the name of the petitioner. This contention on behalf of the Respondent prevailed with the learned Single Judge. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that according to the modified procedure of assessment for the pur­pose of preparing the Select List of members of the State Civil Service as 'Outstanding' 'Very good', and 'Good' recording of reasons is not necessary as the assessment itself is the reason for super­session. According to the learned Counsel under the new proce­dure Regulation 6 and particularly Regulation 6 (iii) is otiose and no illegality or irregularity was committed by the Selection Committee for preparation of the Select List and consequent approval of the same by the Public Service Commission. 10. The first question for our consideration is as to whether the deletion of the name of the respondent from the selection list which, was borne in the list since 1973 to 1978 was justified. Secondly, whether for the deletion of the name of the respon­dent from the selection list reason had to be recorded. Thir­dly, whether- the principle of Natural Justice is violated because of the fact that the name of the respondent was omitted from selection list without the respondent being heard. Regarding the first question, the answer is that the respon­dent was appointed temporarily in the I.A.S. Cadre as no I A.S. and I.F.A.S. cadre were available for appointment. Thir­dly, whether- the principle of Natural Justice is violated because of the fact that the name of the respondent was omitted from selection list without the respondent being heard. Regarding the first question, the answer is that the respon­dent was appointed temporarily in the I.A.S. Cadre as no I A.S. and I.F.A.S. cadre were available for appointment. He continued in that temporary capacity till 1977. When the Selection Committee sat on the 30th December, 1977, he was graded in class 'Good'. Before the Selection Body names of 105 officers came up for consideration and out of them 24 were graded in class 'very good'. For the subsequent year- in 1978, 24 vacancies were available for appointment. Therefore, the names of only these 24 had been recorded in the Selection List. Regarding the contention of the Respondent about the withholding of the integrity certificate in regard to the Respondent in the rejoinder to the additional affidavit-in-reply to the respondent, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has averred that the State Government examined the nature and gravity of the charges against the Respondent and proceeding being for the major penalty the integrity certificate was withheld. We have already adverted in the earlier part of the judgment that in 1976 a departmental proceeding was drawn up against the respondent on various grave charges which culminated in the conclusion of the proceeding holding the respondent to be guilty of the charges clearly proved and appropriate punish­ment inflicted for which the respondent an appeal which is pending. In view of the aforesaid facts the withholding of the integrity certificate by the authority cannot be held to be unjus­tified. These facts were known to the respondent. Therefore, he cannot now be heard to say that he did not have any knowledge of the reason for which integrity certificate was withheld. The appel­lants' counsel contends that the withholding of the integrity cer­tificate was not the reason for non-inclusion of the Respondent's name in the Select list. The selection committee considered only the service records of the officers including that of the Respon­dent during the process of gradation. We have already men­tioned that his grade was only 'good' and the 24 persons whose names are put in the select list are of grade 'very good'. Therefore, there is justification for making any grievance by the respondent in not putting his name in the Selection List. We have already men­tioned that his grade was only 'good' and the 24 persons whose names are put in the select list are of grade 'very good'. Therefore, there is justification for making any grievance by the respondent in not putting his name in the Selection List. After the deletion of sub-Regulation (7) or Regulation 5 of 1955 Regulation no reason need be recorded by the Selection Committee for not putting the name of any particular officer in the select list. On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that if no reason is recorded by the Selection Committee the Public Service Commission will not be in a position to scruti­nize the proceeding as required to be done under clause (iii) of Regulation 6 of the said Regulation. When there is no scope for recording reason by the Selection Committee after the dele­tion of sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 5, there is no question of scrutinizing the reason which is non-existent. It may be that when there is a question of supersession in a particular grade, namely, of the grade 'outstanding', 'very good' and 'good' as mentioned in sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 because of the provision of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 5, "the list shall be prepared by including the required number of names, first from amongsts the officers finally classified as outstanding, then from amongsts those similarly classified as 'very good' and thereafter amongsts those similarly classified as 'good' and the order of name inter-se is within the category shall be from the order of seniority in the State Service, "the provision under clause (iii) of Regulation 6 may be attracted. But in this par­ticular ease when there is no question of supersession of the respondent, he being only graded as 'good' whereas the select list consists only names of 24 officers in grade "very good" there was no question of recording any reason. We do not find how it can be said the Principle of Nat­ural Justice has been violated in this case in not giving any notice of the fact of the deletion of his name by the Selection Committee., He was holding a temporary post of I.A.S. cadre and as his name did not come in the grade for inclusion of the name in the select list, there is no question of giving him any notice of that fact. The respondent was well aware that there was a departmental proceedings going on against him with serious charges, he is expected to know that his name could not be in the select list. 11. The question we may first consider, from amongst other things before us, is whether the function of the Selection Comm­ittee in preparing the list, which could involve proposals for supersession, is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. It is found from the records that each Selection Committee had to consider the eases of all substantive members of the State Service concurred under Regulation 4, to determine whether they were eligible, and thereafter, whether they should be brought on the Select List for the particular year. Regulation 3 provides that the Committee, which had to prepare the Select list will be composed of persons mentioned "in a schedule. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the entire process consisted of selection on the basis of service records assessed by experts. It is difficult to conceive of any 'list' between each candidate and all the others. Indeed, the process of selection could hardly be spoken of as a kin to the process of litigation, where two or more parties, who prefer claims to the same subject matter have to be informed of each other's case and issues on points in dispute are framed and then decided. Even if such a pro­cess of selection by assessment of merits could conceivably be viewed as a whole series of disputes as to comparative claims, It is quite Impracticable to hear each candidate as against all the others after giving each the result of assessments of merits of all the others with access to the materials on which these are based. Candidates are not expected to sit in judgment over evaluations of their own merits and of others. The process of selection by evaluation of respective records of service is more a kin to that of an examination of candidates than to any quasi-judicial proceeding. 12. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that a person whose name is brought on the Select List for a particular year does not acquire any right except to remain on the list until it is reviewed and revised. 12. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that a person whose name is brought on the Select List for a particular year does not acquire any right except to remain on the list until it is reviewed and revised. It was submitted that this was not an absolute or unconditional or indefeasible right to remain on the list and that no quasi-judicial proceeding could be deman­ded to defend a right which did not exist or was so fluid or transitory in character. It has been urged that, as the criteria for being placed on the selection list were entirely subjective, no candidate could claim a right to have his merits assessed, every year by applying the same uniform, invariable, objective tests. In the Union of India vs. M.L. Capoor ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ) the facts emerging from the report shows that there the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in dealing with two Writ petitions before him had rather brusquely brushed aside the contention that Regulation 5 implied some limitations on the powers of selection. The Division Bench while holding that these powers were to be exercised in the administrative and not quasi-judicial capacity erected the imperative need for "due regard to seniority", laid down in Regulation 5 clause (2), into a sheet anchor of an over-riding claim of seniority which, in its opinion, was to prevail subject only to the claims of "excep­tional merit and suitability" mentioned in the proviso to clause (3) of Regulation 5. It was submitted on behalf of the appel­lant that in doing so, it unduly enlarged the claims of seniority and made it a barrier in the path of promotion of meritorious individuals in service. Seniority can certainly not be over-looked as the basis of a claim, in view of Regulation 5, clauses (2) and (3). But, to hold that seniority is practically the governing or decisive factor in all cases of promotion under these regulations, subject only to the claims of exceptional merit and suitability, would, it was urged on behalf of appellants, minimise the im­portance of merit. It was observed in the above context of the facts "Merit is certainly an elusive factor capable of being judged very differently from different angles, or, by application of varying tests of it by different persons, or by the same per­sons, at different times. It was observed in the above context of the facts "Merit is certainly an elusive factor capable of being judged very differently from different angles, or, by application of varying tests of it by different persons, or by the same per­sons, at different times. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondents that to make supposed merit the sole test for selection would be to leave the door wide open for nepotism to creep into selections for higher rungs of public service by promotion and that this would undermine the morale of member of the State services and weaken incentives for honest work and achievement of better standards of proficiency by them." The Court observed, "We fail to see why administrative machinery which secures for the most meritorious chances of superseding their seniors, in promotions to higher posts should have an adverse and not beneficial effects upon the morale of members of State services or upon incentives for better work and efficiency. No doubt, care has to be taken that it is so operated as to really secure the choice of the most meritorious by honest and rigorous applications of correct and proper tests." While addressing to the question of the rules of natural justice, Mathew, J. in Union of India v. M.L. Capoor (supra) made the following significant observation, which has got releva­nce in the context of the facts of the present case. That obser­vation reads : "I am not impressed by the argument that rules of natural justice require that when a senior is proposed to be superseded, he should be given notice and his explanation-called. Inclusion of a name in the select list, at best, can give the person only an inchoate right to be included in the select list for the next year. He has only a right to be considered for inclusion in it In other words, inclusion of a person's name in the select list in a year does not give that person a vested right to have his name included in the select list for the succeeding year. As already stated, a fresh list will have to be prepared for the suc­ceeding year after considering the merit and suitability of all the eligible candidates. Regulation 5(5) of the Promo­tion Regulations makes it clear that there can be super­session when making the selection, or in reviewing or revi­sing the select list. As already stated, a fresh list will have to be prepared for the suc­ceeding year after considering the merit and suitability of all the eligible candidates. Regulation 5(5) of the Promo­tion Regulations makes it clear that there can be super­session when making the selection, or in reviewing or revi­sing the select list. When making a selection for the first lime, the expression "supersession can mean only passing over the claim of a senior according to the State service for inclusion in the list, for, ex-hypothesi, no previous select list exists. In that context, the word 'supersession'' can denote only the selection of a junior in preference to a senior according to their rank in the State service. There is no reason to give a different meaning to the expression in the context of review or revision of the select list. The expression "Supersession" does not mean removal of the name of a person whose name appeared in the pre­vious list from the subsequent list or his demotion in rank in the subsequent list. As there is to be a fresh assessment of merit and suitability when a fresh list has to be drawn up, and that, as far as possible has to be done every year, the word "supersession" can only mean overlooking the seniority in the State service for inclusion in the list. I should have thought that the expression "supersession" in the context is quite inapt, as it has over­tones that seniority per se has some claim for preferen­tial claim. But, ex-hypothesi the selection is primarily on the basis of merit and suitability. Therefore, though strictly speaking, there can be no question of supersession when a senior is passed over, as the selection is based pri­marily on merit and suitability, the expression was used probably to indicate that seniority is a factor of great weight to be taken into consideration for inclusion in the select list. Whatever that be, I do not think that in making select on or in reviewing or revising the select list, as a fresh list has to be prepared on the basis of merit and suitability of all eligible candidates including those whose names remain in the previous list, with due regard to seniority, there is no question of notice being given to a senior when he is proposed to be passed over. No ves­ted right is involved; no interest recognized and protected by law is in jeopardy. I am not prepared to lay down as a general proposition that whenever a selection is made on the basis of merit and suitability with due regard to seniority, notice to a senior will be required if he is pro­posed to be passed over in favour of a junior on the ground of his greater merit and suitability. No precedent has been cited in support of the proposition. On a balance of all the relevant factors, I do not think it expedient to extend the horizon of natural justice involved in the audi alteram partem rule to the twilight zone of mere expecta­tions, however great they might be." (emphasized by us) 13. In the ultimate analysis the questions that emerge from the arguments advanced by the parties are (1) that non-recording of the reasons for deleting the name of the respondent from the Select List was violative of the provisions of Regulation 6 (iii) of the Regulations. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is that as there is non-compliance of the provi­sions of Regulation 6 (iii) therefore the entire proceedings of the Selection Committee held on 30th December, 1977 was void and inoperative. We have already noticed that Regulation 5 under which the Selection Committee is to review the cases of the officers of the State Cadres to put their names in the Select List for appointment and promotion to the I.A.S. cadre does not require the recording of the reasons. We cannot be obli­vious of the legislative history in this regard. Clause (7) of Regulation 5 enjoined the Selection Committee for recording of reasons if a name of a person in the State cadre was to fee superseded. But that Clause (7) has already been deleted in 1977 prior to the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 30th December, 1977. Therefore, it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as there is no requirement of recording of reasons for the preparation of the Select List of officers, the respondent cannot be heard to say that there should have been recording of reasons for the omission of his name in the Select List for tin year 1978. Therefore, it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as there is no requirement of recording of reasons for the preparation of the Select List of officers, the respondent cannot be heard to say that there should have been recording of reasons for the omission of his name in the Select List for tin year 1978. After going through the entire scheme of the Regulation we find that non-recording of reason under Regulation 5 would not make the provisions of Regulation 6(iii) otiose and nugatory. This provision was extant at the relevant time. That provision will also have its play and operation when there is a question of supersession of any mem­ber of the classification envisaged under Clause (4) of Regulation 5. To illustrate that if a member who is classified as 'outstan­ding' or 'very good' or 'good' in preparing the list inter se, the question of seniority will have to be taken into account and if any person is to be superseded the reason shall have to be recorded by virtue of the provision of Clause (4) of Regulation 5. Here in our instant case, there was no question of supersession of the respondent. His gradation or classification is only 'good' whereas of the 24 persons whose names are put in the Select List are classified as 'very good'. There would have been necessity for recording of reasons if in the 'very good' category, some of the members of the service would have been superse­ded. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that in order to give a full play to the provision of Regulation 6(iii), there should have been recoding of reasons as to why the respondent whose name was at the top of the list in 1977 was not included in the Select List. Regulation 6 of the Promotion Regulation is not couched in a prohibitive or negative language. No penalty is provided for non-compliance which relates to the rights of the public duties. It does not confer private rights. The invalidation of the approval of the Commission would work serious general inconvenience and injustice to the private respondents who had no control over the State Government and it will not promote the essential aim of the Regulation. There cannot be spelt out any implied nullification for disobedience. It contains only a procedural provision. It does not confer private rights. The invalidation of the approval of the Commission would work serious general inconvenience and injustice to the private respondents who had no control over the State Government and it will not promote the essential aim of the Regulation. There cannot be spelt out any implied nullification for disobedience. It contains only a procedural provision. From the above attributes of Regulation 6 of the Promotion Regulation, it becomes clear that the Promotion Regulation is only directory and is not mandatory. As such, the non-com­pliance with Regulation 6 in letter and spirit will not vitiate or nullify the approval given by the Commission. But it does not mean that directory statutory provisions are made to be observed in their violation. Tin salient differe­nce between mandatory and directory provision is that the manda­tory provisions have to be complied in letter and spirit whereas substantial compliance in the case of directory provisions is regarded as sufficient. The rule making authority has curtailed the discretion of the Committee to a great extent. It has given very clear-cut and precise guidelines for selection. Sub-Regulation (4) of Regula­tion 5 of the Promotion Regulation?, provides that the Selection Committee has to classify the eligible officers as "outstanding", "very good", "good" or "unfit" on the overall assessment of their service records. Now it may be pertinent to point out that the Selection Committee consists of very Senior Officers of the State Government. The Chairman or the Member of the Union Public Service Commission presides over the meetings. These Officers are experts in the art of governance and adminis­tration. The words 'outstanding, 'very good', 'good' or 'unfit' in the context of service records have very clear connotations. They are illuminating guidelines. So, the Committee has asse­ssed the relative records of the concerned officers, including the Respondents and then categorized them. The classification has been done on the basis of service records and with a view to select the most meritorious officers. It is vehemently contended that the Committee has not given any reasons, but the service records speak for themselves. The Committee has only compared the service records and then classified these officers. The classification has been done on the basis of service records and with a view to select the most meritorious officers. It is vehemently contended that the Committee has not given any reasons, but the service records speak for themselves. The Committee has only compared the service records and then classified these officers. We have seen from the records that the officers who have received their number of "very good" reports have been classified as "very good" and the officers who have not received "very good" reports, or have received number of "good" reports then the report received by the selected offi­cers were classified as "good''. The examination of the records speaks for those officers whose records were examined by the Committee only recorded these voices. The records themselves are self-eloquent. No further reasons are required. The categories truly reflected the service records of the officers considered. The reasons for the conclusions reached on the basis of certain facts only show the application of mind and the process of There is no magic in the word 'reasons' as such. The Promotion Regulations have given precise and clear-cut guidelines for categorizing the officers on the basis of their service records. The Respondent has not made any specific grievance against the categorisation by the Committee. The rule making authority has by amendment of June 3, 1977, omitted sub-regu­lation (7) of Regulation 5 of the Promotion Regulations. This sub-regulation provided for the recording of reasons for the supersession of officers. By the amended regulation, a clear guidelines have been provided. Only officers with better record would be included in the Select List. There cannot fee any arbitrary, whimsical and ad- hoc selection under the amended sub-regulations (4) and (5) of Regulation 5 of the Promotion Regu­lations. The conclusion which culminates in the categorisation itself reflect the reasons. Requirement of recording reasons was there in the form of sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 5 of the Promotion Regulations. That has specifically been deleted by the rule making authority. This is an indication of the intent of the rule making authority. Classification noted as 'outstanding', 'very good', 'good' and is clearly indicative of all the process of reasoning. Requirement of recording reasons was there in the form of sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 5 of the Promotion Regulations. That has specifically been deleted by the rule making authority. This is an indication of the intent of the rule making authority. Classification noted as 'outstanding', 'very good', 'good' and is clearly indicative of all the process of reasoning. In J.S. Chopra vs. Union of India, (1980) 2 SLR-206, before a Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, the question came for consideration as to whether clause (iii) of Regulation 6 is mandatory and as such the Selection Committee must record its reasons for inclusion or deletion of names of any of the officers in the select list. There it was heavily relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. H. P. Chothia and others ( AIR 1978 SC 1214 ) where the Supreme Court. while considering the provisions of Regulation 5(2) of the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (for short Forest Regulations) which according to petitioner were pari materia with Regulation 6(iii) of the Administrative Regulations, 1955, held that the said sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5 of the Forest Regulation was mandatory in character and that if reasons envisaged in the said sub-regulation (2) were not forwarded to the Commission then the decision of the Commission under Sub-Regulation (3) of the Regulations of the Forest Regulation would stand vitiated. The Regulation 5 of the Forest Regulations reads as follows : "5(1) The Board shall prepare, in order of preference, the list of such officers of State Forest Service who satisfy the conditions specified in Regulation 4 and who are adjudged by the Board suitable for appointment to posts in the senior and junior scales of service ; (2) The list prepared in course of sub-regulation (1) shall then be referred to the Commission for advice, by tae Central Government along with ; (a) the records of all officers of State Forest service included in the list; (b) the records of all other eligible officers of the State Forest Service who are not adjudged suitable for Inclusion in the list, together with the reasons as recor­ded by the Board for their non-inclusion in the list." A bare reading of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5 of the Forest Regulations shows that the preparation of list of suitable officers are not identical with the corresponding amen­ded sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 of the Administrative Regulations, the difference being that while sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5 of the Forest Regulations does not indicate any definite objective material which was to be taken into considera­tion for adjudging a person as suitable in reference to another person, sob-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 of the Administra­tive Regulation left no scope for any subjective approach and expressly indicate the material which has to enter into the decision of the Selection Committee and the reasons for prefe­rring to another in that sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 of the Administrative Regulations envisages that the Selection Commi­ttee would classify the eligible officers as "outstanding", "very good", "good", or "unfit", as the case may be, on an overall rela­tive assessment of their service record. That means, materials that the Selection Committee has to take into consideration is the service records of the officers concerned and after assessing the service record of one better than other it would categorise the officers as "outstanding", "very good", "good", or ''unfit''. When a given Selection Committee happen to categorise a per­son as “outstanding", it means to say that the officer concerned, because of his service records, is ''outstanding". When a given Selection Committee happen to categorise a per­son as “outstanding", it means to say that the officer concerned, because of his service records, is ''outstanding". In the case of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5 of the Forest Regulations, there is no materials which can be pin-pointed and which is to be taken into consideration for coming to a decision by the Board and which the Commission would refer to for seeing as to whether the decision of the Board in adjudging an officer suitable or unsuitable is or is not warranted. In such a case unless the Board gave its reasons for adjudging a particular officer as suitable or unsuitable, the Commission, when formula­ting its own recommendations would be grouping in dark and would have no means to check as to what had weighed with the Board in adjudging a given officer as suitable or unsuitable. A reference to the record of the eligible officer despatched to it under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5 of the Forest Regulations would put the Commission in no wiser position, for even if the record of a given officer adjud­ged as unsuitable was found to be good, the Commission would not be in a position to say that the officer was suitable for there may have been something apart from the records which may have weighed with the Board and coming to the conclu­sion that the officer in question was unsuitable. It is in the context of such a situation that their Lordships of the Supreme Court held clause (a) and (b) of sub-regulation (2) of Regula­tion 5 of the Forest Regulations to be mandatory in character. However, no such problem appears to arise for the Commissions while dealing with the consideration of the select list prepared by the Selection Committee under the Administrative Regulations. This apart one has to further look into the history of the relevant provisions of Regulations 5 and 6 of the Administra­tive Regulations. By a notification dated 3.6.77, the existing regulation 5 and 7 of the Administrative Regulations were deleted and Regula­tion 4 was recast. Existing sub-regulation (7) of Regulations 5 of the Administrative Regulations required the Committee in mandatory terms to record its reasons if it proposed super­session of any member of the State Civil Service in the process of selection, review or revision of the list. Existing sub-regulation (7) of Regulations 5 of the Administrative Regulations required the Committee in mandatory terms to record its reasons if it proposed super­session of any member of the State Civil Service in the process of selection, review or revision of the list. The question arises as to- why regulation 7 was deleted. The reason is apparent. Before the amendment was carried out of regulation 5 of the Administrative Regulation as a result of the notification dated 3.6.77, sub-regulation (7) had a purpose to serve in that the sub-regulation (4), as it stood, was almost pari materia with the existing sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5 of the Forest Regu­lations in that it indicated no material which had to be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee for adjudging a person as suitable or unsuitable. The recasting of sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 of the Administrative Regulations, as a result of the said notification, rendered sub-regulation (5), as also sub-regulation (7) thereof redundant in that sub-regulation (4), as re­cast, not only indicated the material which had to enter into consideration of the Selection Committee for judging the merit of an officer but also indicated that the merit shall be expres­sed in terms of "outstanding", "very good", "good", or "unfit" and that "outstanding" would take the first place. Second place would be taken by the "very good", third place by the "good" and in the respective categorisation if more than one officer is categorised as "outstanding", "very good", and "good", then seniormost officer would be put in the No. 1 in the given cate­gory. The list thus prepared in accordance with amended sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 of the Administrative Regulation speaks for itself. The Full Bench observes : "To illustrate, for example, there were two substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of the period of 12 months regarding which select list was to be prepared. The list thus prepared in accordance with amended sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 of the Administrative Regulation speaks for itself. The Full Bench observes : "To illustrate, for example, there were two substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of the period of 12 months regarding which select list was to be prepared. In view of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5 of the Administrative Regulations, 4 persons were to be brought on tin list and if for instance, out of 20 members of the State Civil Service whose cases in order of seniority have to be considered in terms of sub-regulation (2) of Regu­lation 5 of the Administrative Regulations, two officers have been categorised as "outstanding", two as "very good" and remaining as "good", then those two who are "outstanding" and two who are categorised as "very good", would be put on the select list and when the two adjudged as "outstanding" and "very good" happen to be junior to those who are categorised as merely "good" the result would be that the senior ones would find no place on the list so prepared. If one was to ask as to why the senior ones were not included in the list, the list itself would speak out the reason that they were not included in the list because their services record when compared with the service records of those, whose names have been placed in the select list, did not warrant their categorisation either "outstanding" or as "very good". In such a situation, the existing sub-regulation (7) of Regu­lation 5 of the Administrative Regulation was to serve no purpose as the purpose which this sub-regulation was intended to serve stood served by amended sub-regulation (4) itself." "It has been argued if such be the case why was it that clause (iii) of Regulation 6 of the Administrative Regulation was also not deleted, as that clause also became redundant. It is seen that by a later notification in the year 1979, clause (iii) of Regulation 6 had been deleted would show that, in fact, the said provision had become redun­dant after the amendment of sub-regulation (4) of Regula­tion 5 and that it remained part of Regulation 6 in bet­ween either for the reason that, perhaps, by inadvertance, it escaped attention of the authors of the amendment or (taking a more charitable view) that the said provision was spared amendment earlier for the reason that in case the Selection Committee had recorded any additional rea­sons on account of any circumstance in addition to the service records of a given officer having weighed with it, then the Committee was not prohibited from giving addi­tional reasons in that regard and if it gave such additional reasons then it was only natural that it should have been required to be conveyed to the Commission and clause (ii) was intended to serve the said purpose. It appears that its existence merely served to create confusion and complication rather than to serve its purpose of the kind indicated already, so the framers of the Administrative Regulation acted to stem the confusion by deleting in 1979 clause (iii) of Regulation 6 of the Administrative Regula­tions." "It our view, the amendment of sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 of the Administrative Regulation does not leave anything to subjective satisfaction of the Selection Committee. It has to confine to the service records of each candidate and then decide as to who out of them is "outstanding" "very good", "good" or "unfit." If in a given case it takes into consideration anything outside the service record of the officer concerned without giving Its reasons or without furnishing such reasons, if any, to the Commission and if categorisation of the candidates does not accord with their service records, then the Commi­ssion, which has to confine itself to the service records for considering the merits of the candidates would certai­nly modify the select list and bring it in accord with the comparative service record of the candidates. When so viewed it cannot be said that amended provision of sub-regulation (4) read with Regulation 7, leaves no scope for arbitrariness in the finalization of the select list on the basis of service records of the candidates." We think that the view expressed by the Full Bench in the above case is quite cogent and illuminating. It has correctly given an exposition of the process of selection with which we are inclined to agree. 14. The second question is as to whether the State Govern­ment was justified in withholding the integrity certificate of the respondent and as to whether the respondent should have been given a chance to have his say as to why his integrity certifi­cate was withheld. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that as he was not given a chance to explain his position re­garding the withholding of the integrity certificate, there was flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice. The appellants in their affidavits have stated that the inte­grity certificate of the respondent was withheld because a depart­mental enquiry with serious and grave charges was going on against the respondent. He was in full know of the entire thing that he was proceeded against with some grave charges, enquiry was conducted, witnesses were examined in his presence and the enquiry was in the final stage even according to the case of the respondent. In fact the enquiry report dated 19th of November, 1977 i. e. more than a month prior to the sitting of the Selection Committee. The Government was in possession of the report of the enquiry. Therefore, the action of the Govern­ment can not be said to be unjustified in withholding the inte­grity certificate of the respondent. In view of such a state of facts, we do not think that there was any violation of the principle of natural justice. According to the provision of sub-regulation (4) (as amended) of Regulation 5 of the Promotion Regulation, the Selection Committee is to select the officers on the basis of the service records. In view of such a state of facts, we do not think that there was any violation of the principle of natural justice. According to the provision of sub-regulation (4) (as amended) of Regulation 5 of the Promotion Regulation, the Selection Committee is to select the officers on the basis of the service records. This sub-regulation reads : "(4) The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as 'Outstanding', 'Very good', 'Good', or 'Unfit', as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their service records." Therefore the service records of the Officers were before the Selection Committee at the time of classification or making the gradation of the Officers to be included in the Select List. The Annual Confidential Report (A. C. R.) for the year 1976-77 (till December 1976) which has been annexed by the Respondent as Annexure-36 to his affidavit-in-reply to the rejoinder submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, regarding the genera' assessment reads as follows : "Shri lal is an intelligent officer who has a good grasp of the matters and problems related to planning. He expressed himself with clarity and goes into details of a given problem. He is equally sharp in discussions and puts forth his points of view forcefully. His disposal is generally quick and his subordinates are largely happy with him. However, even though a hard working and experienced officer, he does need to develop a sense of greater objectivity and forth-rightness in dealing with men and matters in order to make himself an absolutely dependable officer. Rather fond of drinking but keeps control over himself." Regarding the remark as to the underlined portion of the A.C.R., the Respondent submits that this remark was not com­municated to the Respondent till 6.1.78. i.e., some days after the sitting of the Selection Committee on 30th December, 1977, although according to the Government instruction No. 3 com­municated in circular letter No. PLA. 149/63 dated 12th July, 1972, the adverse remarks are to be communicated immediately to the officer concerned. The instruction No. 3 reads : "3. i.e., some days after the sitting of the Selection Committee on 30th December, 1977, although according to the Government instruction No. 3 com­municated in circular letter No. PLA. 149/63 dated 12th July, 1972, the adverse remarks are to be communicated immediately to the officer concerned. The instruction No. 3 reads : "3. In this connection it must be borne in mind that an adverse entry will not carry any meaning if it is not communicated immediately to the officer concerned....” It has been submitted on behalf of the Respondent that on receipt of the adverse remarks against him in the A.C.R. afore­said., he made a representation to the Lt. Governor of Arunachal Pradesh on 10.1.1978 through proper channel for expunging the aforesaid adverse remarks. This representation is annexed as Annexure-37 to his affidavit-in-reply. From this annexure it is found that the Minister-in-charge of Education recommended for expunging the adverse remarks from his A.C.R. Be that as it may, the position remains that at the time of sitting of the Selection Committee, the aforesaid A.C.R. was before the Selec­tion Committee at the time of processing the classification of the Officers concerned. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Selection Committee graded him only as "Good" and hence his name could not find place in the Select List, because the other Officers who were classified as "Very Good' were only included in the Select List. The Selection Committee made the classifi­cation only on the basis of the service records of the Officers. The Selection Committee did not have any occasion to enquire as to whether the adverse remarks appearing in the A.C.R. of the Respondent was communicated to him or not. That being the position, it cannot be said that grading of the Respondent as "Good" by the Selection Committee was anyway unjustified. For the non-communication of the adverse remark to the Res­pondent, if anything, it was the reporting officer who was res­ponsible for such lapse for which the Selection Committee cannot be anyway held to be responsible. In his original petition he has not made any grievance that there was an adverse entry in his A.C.R. for the year 1976-77 and such adverse remark was not communicated to him. It was only in his affidavit-in-reply as noticed earlier, he has raised this point. 15. In his original petition he has not made any grievance that there was an adverse entry in his A.C.R. for the year 1976-77 and such adverse remark was not communicated to him. It was only in his affidavit-in-reply as noticed earlier, he has raised this point. 15. The Respondent has again raised a contention that because of the withholding of the integrity certificate by the authority, the Selection Committee was deprived of making proper selection so far as the Respondent was concerned. Acc­ording to the Government decision vide G.I.M.H.A. letter No. 14/23/65-AIS (III), dated 8.6.1965 read with M.H.A. letter No. 14/23/65-AIS (III) dated 28th July, 1965, the integrity certificate is to be recorded by the Chief Secretary to the State Gover­nment, which is the sponsoring authority in respect of whose cases are placed before the Selection Committee for recommendation. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that as in his case integrity certificate was withheld, there is a clear violation of the instruction No. 1 of point 1 of the aforesaid decision. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1622 . In that case appellant's name was not put in the select list since the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Punjab had refused to give integrity certificate to him and as a result two junior officers were granted seniority over the appellant. The proceedings of the selection committee disclosed that the appellant was not selected for that reason and also that he was not found suitable otherwise. The integrity certi­ficate was withheld on the ground that there was an adverse remark against the appellant. But the appellant had submitted his representation against it which was yet to be considered. The Supreme Court held that as the Government had not been able to consider his explanation and decide whether the adverse report was justified, under the circumstances, it was difficult to support the non-issuance of the integrity certificate to the appellant. Here in the case before us as we have already indicated above, it is not clear whether the integrity certificate of other officers which came up for consideration by the selection commi­ttee were before the selection committee at the time of processing the gradation. Here in the case before us as we have already indicated above, it is not clear whether the integrity certificate of other officers which came up for consideration by the selection commi­ttee were before the selection committee at the time of processing the gradation. It is not possible to find out from the allegation that it is only in case of the Respondent the integrity certifi­cate was not placed before the selection committee but in cases of others they were before the selection committee at the time of gradation. The minutes of the selection committee discloses that against officers finally selected of inclusion in the select list, there was nothing against their integrity as found from the confidential reports of the officers. Further it is not the case of the Respondent that the selection committee did not put the name of the Respondent in the select list because the integrity certificate in favour of the Respondent was not before it nor such reason is found recorded by the Selection Committee in its proceedings. The Respondent's main grievance is that the selec­tion committee did not record any reason for not putting his name in the select list. The proceedings of the selection committee show that the name of Respondent was duly considered along with other officers. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, in our opinion the principle laid down in Gurdial Singh's case has no application. Again answer to the contention are two fold : firstly it is the case of the appellants that the integrity certificate in favour of the Respondent was withheld not because of any adverse remark in the A.C.R. but it was due to the fact that a Depa­rtmental enquiry with allegations of serious charges was go­ing on against the Respondent and in fact the enquiry was concluded finding all the charges proved against the Res­pondent long before the sitting of the selection committee. Therefore no grievance can be made on this score. Secondly, it is found from the affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the Govt. Therefore no grievance can be made on this score. Secondly, it is found from the affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh that the integrity certificate of the Respondent was withheld in view of the fact that a proceeding with charges of grave nature was pending and the Respondent was well-aware about the said proceeding which was concluded before the sitting of the Selection Committee on 30.12.1977 and in fact the Enquiry Officer submitted the report to the Govern­ment on 19.11.77 finding all the charges proved against the Respondent, In view of the aforesaid fact, it cannot be said to be unjustified that that sponsoring authority withheld the in­tegrity certificate of the Respondent. By virtue of the Govt. of India letter No. 17/3/70-AIS (III) dated 26.5.70, it is well within the jurisdiction of the sponsoring authority to withhold the integrity certificate. The relevant portion of the said letter leads : "With reference to the nature and gravity of the char­ges, the evidence available on the basis of the investi­gation made up to that time, the known arguments of defence., if any, the views of the Head of the Depart­ment., the general reputation of the officers etc. and then decide whether they would like to include him in the list of officers, whose integrity is certified or the list of officers in respect of whom integrity certificate is with­held." The aforesaid Govt. of India letter was incorporated in the affidavit fifed on 30.11.79 by the Chief Secretary to the Govern­ment of Arunachal Pradesh to which no exception can be taken. The learned Single Judge has held that this letter has not been legally proved and hence no reliance can be placed on the aforesaid letter of the Govt. of India. However, the learned Single Judge in his judgment has to a certain extent, relied on the aforesaid letter and held : "Even the purport of Government of India's letter dated 26.5.70 shows that in case of officers against whom enqui­ries are pending the integrity certificate should not ipso facto be withheld. The State Government in each case with reference to the nature/gravity of the charges, the evidence available on the basis of the investigation made opto that time, the known arguments of defence, if any, the view of the Head of the Department the general reputation of the officer etc. The State Government in each case with reference to the nature/gravity of the charges, the evidence available on the basis of the investigation made opto that time, the known arguments of defence, if any, the view of the Head of the Department the general reputation of the officer etc. and then decide whether they would like to include him in the list of officers whose integrity is certified or withheld. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh nowhere says that even the directions of this letter were followed and the results thereof recor­ded in the proceedings." The case of the appellants is that even apart from the aforesaid Govt. letter the authority concerned was justified in not issuing the integrity certificate in favour of the Respondent in view of the departmental proceeding with serious allegations, of charges pending against him. 16. For the Respondent yet another argument has been sought to be built up by the learned counsel to the effect that the appointment of the Respondent vide Annexure 11 to the petition as Director of Rehabilitation and settlement, Government of Arunachal Pradesh with headquarters at Shillong under the signature of the Chief Secretary dated the 28th March, 1978, of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, amounts to reduction of rank, inasmuch as, he was holding an I.A.S. Cadre post as Deputy Secretary (P & D) and Ex-Officio Secretary (Education). It is contended by the learned counsel that the Respondent was appointed by the Government of India to the cadre post under Rule 9 of the I.A.S. Cadre Rules of 1954 and it was the Govt. of India which could terminate his appointment from the cadre post and not the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. We have gone through the Annexure 11 appended to the petition and it transpires that the appointment under the said Annexure is with reference to the Govt. of India's signal No. U. 14016/1/78-UTS dated 16th March, 1978. In order to find out what are the contents of this aforesaid signal, we wanted to see the original of the same which was produced before us by the learned counsel for the appellant and on a perusal of the same we find that his appointment to the I.A.S. cadre post has been discontinued due to the fact that he was not selected to be included in the select list at the time of review for the current year. This signal reads as follows : ''M.M. lal of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service has not repeat not been included in the select list for promotion to I.A.S. Cadre of Union Territories approved by U.P.S. on fourteenth March 1978 (.) His appointment to the I.A.S. Cadre post may therefore please be discontinued immedi­ately (.) C.M. Smith and K.C. Gogoi of Arunachal Pra­desh Civil Service have been included in the select list (.) They may please be appointed to I.A.S. Cadre posts immediately." This communication of the Govt. of India shows that his appointment to the cadre post has been discontinued on the instruction of the Govt. of India and therefore he reverts back to his substantive post of the State Civil Service. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh appointed him as Director of Rehabilitation and Settlement, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide order dated 28th March, 1978 contained in Annexure 11 to the peti­tion to which no exception can be made. Hence we do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the Respondent that the Respondent's service has not been termi­nated by the Central Government. We find that the sting of his argument is blunted in view of the existence of the signal No. U. 14016/1/78-UTS dated 16th March, 1978 which we have already quoted. The impact of the above quoted signal is that his cadre post has been discontinued by the Government of India and he reverts back to his parent service. 17. For the reasons set out above we are of firm opini­on that the Respondent has failed to make out a case for Interference by this Court. In that view of the matter the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is not susta­inable and we set aside the same. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition of the Respondent stands dismissed and the Rule issued on the Writ petition by the learned Single Judge of this Court is discharged. However, we do not pass any order as to costs.