JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava, J. - By means of these three petitions, the appointment of an outsider as Deputy Director, Sports not by way of promotion but by taking him on deputation rejecting the three Regional Sports Officers Grade I who were entitled for promotion, is subject matter of challenge in these petitions. 2. Writ Petition No. 8868 of 1987 is being made the leading case which has been filed by one Chandra Behari Tripathi while Writ Petition No. 2964 of 1988 has been filed by the Union of Officers of the Sports Directorate and third Writ Petition No. 3063 of 1988 has been filed by one Surendra Nath 3. There were no statutory rules regarding the appointment and service conditions of the officers of the Directorate of Sports. For the first time the State Government framed the Uttar Pradesh Sports Directorate (Gazetted Service Rules, 1986, governing the service conditions, the manner and procedure of appointment, source of recruitment on the post of Director of Sports, Deputy Director of Sports, Regional Sports Officers (Grade I), Regional Sports Officer (Grade II). Rule 4 of the said Rules provide for a cadre of service, Same reads as under : "4. (1) The strength of the service and of each category of posts therein shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. (2) The strength of the service and of each category of posts, therein shall, untill orders varying the same are passed under sub-rule (1), be as given in the Appendix - Provided that - (i) the Appointing Authority may leave unfilled or the Governor may hold in abeyance any vacant post, without thereby entitling any person to compensation ; (ii) The Governor may create such additional permanent or temporary post as he may consider proper." Rule 5 which is in respect of recruitment reads as under : "5. Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the service shall be made from the following sources : 1. Director of Sports .. By promotion from amongst the Deputy Directors of Sports. 2. Deputy Director of Sports .. By promotion from amongst the Regional Sports Officers (Grade I). 3. Regional Sports Officer (Grade I) .. By promotion from amongst Regional Sports Officers (Grade II). 4. Regional Snorts Officer (Grade II) .. Director of Sports .. By promotion from amongst the Deputy Directors of Sports. 2. Deputy Director of Sports .. By promotion from amongst the Regional Sports Officers (Grade I). 3. Regional Sports Officer (Grade I) .. By promotion from amongst Regional Sports Officers (Grade II). 4. Regional Snorts Officer (Grade II) .. 50 per cent by promotion from amongst sports officers and 50 per cent by direct recruitment : Provided that, if no suitable candidate is available for promotion, the posts of Director of Sports and Deputy Director of Sports may be filled by appointing suitable person on contract, or on deputation, in accordance with the executive instructions of Government for the time being in force. Note - The post of Deputy Director (Administration), Accounts Officer, Assistant Accounts Officer and Assistant Engineer shall be filled by deputation from other departments of the Government for the time being" Rule 7 provides for qualifications. While Rule 15 provides the procedure for direct recruitment which reads as under : "15. (1) For the purpose of direct recruitment there shall be constituted a Selection Committee comprising. (i) The Secretary, Sports. (ii) The Secretary, Karmik, (iii) The Director of Sports, (iv) An expert from National Institute of Sports, Patiala or Sports , Authority of India. (2) ................. (3) ................. Rule 16 provides the procedure for recruitment by promotion and the same reads as under : "16. (1) Recruitment by promotion shall be made through the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 15 on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit except for the post of Director where it will be merit. (2) The appointing authority shall prepare an eligibility list of the candidates, arranged in order of seniority and place it before the Selection Committee alongwith their character rolls and such other records pertaining to them as may be considered proper. (3) The Selection Committee shall consider the case of candidates on the basis of the records, referred to in sub-rule (2) and if it considers necessary it may interview the candidates also. (4) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates arranged in order of seniority and forward the same to the appointing authority." 4. In the matter of appointment of one more Deputy Director of Sports which was created, three candidates namely, Chandra Behari Tripathi, Surendra Nath and one N. N. Kapoor laid their claim for the same. (4) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates arranged in order of seniority and forward the same to the appointing authority." 4. In the matter of appointment of one more Deputy Director of Sports which was created, three candidates namely, Chandra Behari Tripathi, Surendra Nath and one N. N. Kapoor laid their claim for the same. The record produced before us indicates that Sri H. K. Awasthi, M. L. C. vide his letter, dated 31-7-1987 addressed to the Principal/Secretary Sports asked him that he was annexing the desired application of Suparsh Awasthi and that he will be obliged to him for the kindness. The annexed application dated 31-7-1987 was of his son Suparsh Awasthi for the post of Deputy Director of Sports who was working as a Technician in the R.D.S.O., an Organisation of the Central Government, situate in Lucknow and his head of Department was the Director General. The Joint Secretary of the Sports Department put a note that as a request had been made for appointing Suparsh Awasthi and as such it is desirable that comments may be obtained from the Director General R.D.S O. The Secretary of the Department put a note on 26-8-1987 before the Principal/Secretary to the effect that as directed by him, the papers pertaining to Suparsh Awasthi were being placed. The Joint Secretary on 7-10-1987 with reference to the talks with the Principal/Secretary put a note that the entire State may be divided in three zones and for each zone one Deputy Director of Sports will be needed. It was also mentioned by him that only two officers of the rank of Deputy Director were available in two Department and one more Deputy Director would be required for which purpose one post is to be created and for that a proposal from the Director of Sports has to be obtained. The said proposal was obtained from the Director in which certain deficiencies were found. The Joint Secretary vide order dated 16-10-1987 pointed out the total expenditure which will be involved, in case the proposal was to be accepted and the concurrence of the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister may be obtained. The Secretary of the Department on 16-10-1987 put a note that there was a proposal to appoint Supatsh Awasthi as Deputy Director of Sports for which purpose a new post is to be created. The Secretary of the Department on 16-10-1987 put a note that there was a proposal to appoint Supatsh Awasthi as Deputy Director of Sports for which purpose a new post is to be created. It appears that ultimately approval was given at the secretariat level and the same was put up before the Chief Minister for approval. It further appears that the proposal was approved by the then Chief Minister on 17-12-1987. The matter was then referred to the Cabinet and it seems that the Administrative Committee recalled the proposal for establishing of a zonal office. The only matter which referred to the Cabinet was that of the Department concerned. It appears that the record of Suparsh Awasthi was not called from the R. D. S. O. and vide order dated 17-7-1988 appointment letter was issued appointing Suparsh Awasthi as Deputy Director of Sports. The appointment letter which was also produced before us indicates that initially he was appointed for a period of one year and it was mentioned therein that it will be deemed to be a cadre post. 5. Coming to learn that Suparsh Awasthi has been appointed, C. B. Tripathi petitioner to Writ Petition No. 8868 of 1987 filed a writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party to consider his case for promotion on the post of Deputy Director, Sports before considering any outsider for the said post. Thereafter Union of the officers also filed Writ Petition No. 2964 of 1988 praying for quashing the appointment of Suparsh Awasthi and to send him back to his original post and to consider the three senior most and eligible Regional Sports Officer Grade I for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Sports. Thereafter Surendra Nath who was also claiming the said post filed Writ Petition No. 3093 of 1988 praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to promote him on the post of Deputy Director of Sports before considering the case of any outsider and for quashing the appointment of Suparsh Awasthi. In the petition filed by C. B. Tripathi, Suparsh Awasthi was not impleaded as a party. He moved an application for impleadment. The same was rejected but an hearing was given to him. 6. In the petition filed by C. B. Tripathi, Suparsh Awasthi was not impleaded as a party. He moved an application for impleadment. The same was rejected but an hearing was given to him. 6. In Writ Petition No. 8868 of 1987 an interim order was passed by this Court as follows ; "In the meantime, if any order of promotion is issued, it will be subject to further order which may be passed." Subsequently matter came up for consideration before this court on 21-5-1988 and a direction was given to opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and to take a final decision. So long decision is not taken, Suparsh Awasthi, who has been appointed as Deputy Director of Sports, will not act as Deputy Director of Sports. It will be open for the opposite parties to pay him salary for the post of Deputy Director but he will not work on the said post. The appointment will be made by way of promotion or otherwise in accordance with rules only. The said interim order was later on extended in writ petition filed by Surendra Nath also. 7. On 19-4-1988 a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order- "The learned counsel for the State has stated that Sri Suparsh Awasthi has already taken over as Deputy Director of Sports. However, we direct that meanwhile the State shall consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Sports. Till further orders of the Court, the continuance of Sri Suparsh Awasthi on the post in question shall be subject to further orders of the court" 8. After the orders of the court, dated 21-5-1988 a Selection Committee was constituted under the provisions of U. P. Sports Directorate (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980 which met on 22-8-1986. After personal of character rolls of three departmental candidates and other records and without holding interview, the Committee declared all the three departmental candidates to be unfit for the post of Deputy Director of Sports. After rejecting all the three departmental candidates including one who is on the verge of retirement, a decision was taken to fill in the post by taking the Suparsh Awasthi on deputation. Although a letter regarding his character rolls etc. was sent for from R.D.S.O. in July 1988 though he was appointed in April, 1988. After rejecting all the three departmental candidates including one who is on the verge of retirement, a decision was taken to fill in the post by taking the Suparsh Awasthi on deputation. Although a letter regarding his character rolls etc. was sent for from R.D.S.O. in July 1988 though he was appointed in April, 1988. The papers placed before us indicate that before the Selection Committee, the case of Suparsh Awasthi was also for consideration and the criterion before the committee was seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Thereafter it appears that on 31-8-1988 the Joint Secretary of the department put a note that as all the three departmental candidates have been found unfit as such the name of Suparsh Awasthi can be considered on deputation. It was also mentioned him that his character roll was good and he has been given an outstanding entry for the year 1987-88 and the Director General has also given him good entry and as such he can be appointed for a period of one year on deputation. The matter went up to the Chief Minister who asked for the bio data of Suparsh Awasthi. Thereafter an opinion was sought from the law department whether during the pendency of writ petition appointment can be made which gave its opinion in the affirmative, and then the appointment letter was issued. 9. The Character rolls of the three departmental candidates who have been rejected by the Committee have been placed before us which indicate that from the year 1978 upto 1988 none of these candidates except Surendra Nath was given an adverse entry in the year 1985-86, and otherwise all the other entries were good. Suparsh Awasthi while working in R. D. S. O. also received good entry and for the year 1987-88 he was awarded very good entry in the field of sports. The character roll entries for the year 1983, 1984 and 1985 indicate that for promotion, it was mentioned, he required more experience. In the confidential report of 1986 it was mentioned that he was not fit for higher grade which was accepted by the authorities concerned. In the year 1986 he was given very good entry and in the year 1988 an entry was given to him that he can be given special appointment in connection with sports. In the confidential report of 1986 it was mentioned that he was not fit for higher grade which was accepted by the authorities concerned. In the year 1986 he was given very good entry and in the year 1988 an entry was given to him that he can be given special appointment in connection with sports. This entry was given subsequent to his appointment in Sports Directorate which is in question, It may be mentioned that Suparsh Awasthi was S.R.A. Chemist in the R.D.S.O. 10. On behalf of Suparsh Awasthi it was contended that ex-cadre post was created and he was appointed against the said post and his appointment cannot be challenged by the petitioners who have not laid any claim over ex-cadre post The plea has been taken that he is a outstanding sportsman and reference to his certificates, Medals and other achievements has been made and it has been stated that he is better than other candidates. Rule 4 extracted above provides that there can also be a creation of temporary post in a cadre. Temporary and permanent post both can exist in a cadre but it is always open for the higher authorities to create ex-cadre post, see Dr. Chakra Dhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and others, (1988) 2 SCC 214 . 11. The question in this case will be whether the po3t which has been created was an ex-cadre post or not. In the entire file produced before us while creating the post it has nowhere been mentioned that it was a cadre or ex-cadre post. Though it is clear that a post of Deputy Director of Sports was created, keeping him in mind but the appointment letter which was issued to him in clear words indicates that it will be deemed to be a cadre post and the very same appointment was extended after one year which too has been challenged in the writ petition by way of amendment. In case, nothing would have been mentioned in the appointment letter, then it could have been possible to contend that it is ex-cadre post. In that event there could have been no occasion for the Selection Committee to meet and select the candidates for the post of Deputy Director. Under the Rules selection is provided for posts in the cadre. In case, nothing would have been mentioned in the appointment letter, then it could have been possible to contend that it is ex-cadre post. In that event there could have been no occasion for the Selection Committee to meet and select the candidates for the post of Deputy Director. Under the Rules selection is provided for posts in the cadre. The issuing of letter before selection and holding the selection which according to the petitioner was a sham selection and a show a selection and issue of appointment letter to Suparsh Awasthi too makes it abundantly clear that his appointment was made against a post which was created in the cadre and the contention that the post against which the said Awasthi was posted is an ex-cadre post, fails. 12. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that so-called selection of Suparsh Awasthi was nothing but an empty formality and it was only for giving legal colour even during the pendency of writ petition is patently illegal and arbitrary appointment who for obvious reasons was a favourite cannot be said to be without substance. It is to be noticed that once the Government or its officer takes a decision, there is a tendency to stick to it or maintain or impose it unless it becomes impossible to do so may it be under such orders of the court which cannot be ignored by or passed. In the instant case the grievance of the petitioner is that the same has been done and by rejecting them with one stroke of pen, holding them to be unfit for the office of Deputy Director, though they were earlier quite fit and even now for the posts which they held, such a decision according to the petitioners was taken with pre-determined mind which is evident from the fact that case of Suparsh Awasthi was also before a Selection Committee, as is evident from its proceedings and its deliberations were being presided over by the sponsorer of the name of the said Awasthi, viz. the Secretary of the Department. According to the petitioner apparently because of such a background and pre-determination even in the absence of adverse entries warning or note creating doubts regarding their fitness to hold higher office, their candidature was rejected and the candidature of Suparsh Awasthi which was not better for the purpose of appointment was approved. 13. the Secretary of the Department. According to the petitioner apparently because of such a background and pre-determination even in the absence of adverse entries warning or note creating doubts regarding their fitness to hold higher office, their candidature was rejected and the candidature of Suparsh Awasthi which was not better for the purpose of appointment was approved. 13. The question for consideration is whether the order of rejection of petitioner's candidature is arbitrary for want of any reason whatsoever, despite the fact that the writ petition was pending in the court and there was a 'LIS', whether it would be arbitrary and discriminatory. Fair play is extended even to administrative decisions in service matters and the same cannot be ignored. In A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 , it was held j "The requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and not arbitrarily and capriciously." In the instant case earlier selection was not held by-passing the mandate of statutory rules and a decision was taken before hand to appoint a particular person on deputation. This court permitted the opposite parties that in case selection be made, name of the petitioners shall also be considered. There was no such direction that selection may be made but the opposite parties resorted to it and on the basis of character rolls, they rejected all the candidates when at least against two there were no adverse remarks. In these circumstances during the subsistence of 'lis' it became necessary that reasons should have been given in order to justify the adherence to the earlier patently illegal appointment. Under such circumstances, the rejection of all candidates on the basis of character roils, which was done earlier without considering the same and non-recording of reasons make the selection arbitrary and is vitiated, the same having been done with a predetermined mind. What was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O. P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited, AIR 1987 SC 111 , in the matter of termination can apply in case of promotion also that the same should not be allowed to depend on whims of the authority concerned who should not be invested with arbitrary and uncontrolled powers. In the instant case the writ petition challenging the appointment of Awasthi, a decision for appointing him was taken first and the post was created thereafter and by passing the statutory rules he was appointed and was placed in the cadre. The court did not direct that appointment be made but only granted permission which was availed and yet his name and case was for consideration before the Selection Committee which rejected the candidature of all the three candidates paving the way for Awasthi's appointment on deputation. In the absence of assignment of reasons and rejection of spotless character, the conclusion could be that the powers were exercised arbitrarily to legalise what was illegal. The selection so made and the appointment on deputation again kept intact resulting in supersession of departmental candidates in the absence of reasons which may lead to the exercise of powers arbitrarily, misuse of powers and resort to discrimination and lack of good faith obviously could be no selection in the eyes c f law. 14. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 Suparsh Awasthi contended that in the matter of promotion reasons are not necessary and the selection committee, a competent body, is not required to give reasons and the same being a purely an administrative decision, is outside the purview of challenge and in this connection made reference to two cases. The first case referred to was the case of R. S. Dass v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 593 . In the said case the selection of I. A. S. cadre was involved. Earlier the regulatian provided assigning of reasons for not promoting a person but subsequently regulations were amended and the provision regarding assignment of reasons was dispensed with. Repelling the contention that for non-promotion or supersession assigning of reasons was necessary, the court observed ; "The amended Regulation 5 which dispenses with the necessity of recording reasons in cases of supersession of senior members do not violate Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. The plea that reasons if recorded ensure objectivity and impartiality and in the absence of reasons the Committee may act in arbitrary manner to supersede senior officers which would be violative of Article 14 and Article 16 is not sustainable." The other case relied on by the learned counsel was Union Public Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev and others, 1988 (2) SCC 242 . The said case was with reference to the promotion of I. P. S. Officers. The regulation which earlier provided assigning of reasons for rejection of candidature were similarly amended and the clauses regarding giving of reasons were deleted. The court relying on R. D. Das's case (supra) reiterated the said view. 15. These two cases are distinguishable. The requirement of assigning of reasons was purposely deleted. In the instant case the provisions regarding the assigning of reasons were existed, but the same in implicit in the rules. The rules provide that if the suitable persons are not available, then the post can be filled in by the persons taken on deputation or on contract. For passing over a departmental candidate and giving preference to an outsider and deviating from the normal course, assigning of reasons was necessary as the same does not depend on the subjective satisfaction of the selection committee. It is only after rejecting the departmental candidates, it can look forward for the candidate having a better record and who can be considered to be better experienced person who can discharge the duties of the office concerned. It this case the suitability was judged by the ponderer of the candidature of said Suparsh Awasthi and his subordinate who had also approved it. The expert who had technical knowledge was not present. The oral interview also did not take place. The selection took place in a particular background and purpose when the writ petition was pending before this Court. If the Government was interested in a particular person, it could have considered creation of ex-cadre post. In the matter of selection based on suitability and appointment of outsiders in place of departmental candidate held to be unsuitable the assigning of reasons for rejecting departmental candidate opening room for outsider, the giving of reasons for rejection is implicit it in such a provision so as to give a colour of fairplay to the selection and root out the possibility of arbitrary rejection for opening gates for favouritism, nepotism etc. The assigning of reason is a must if a 'lis' as in the instant case exists. In these circumstances and in view of legal provision. The assigning of reason is a must if a 'lis' as in the instant case exists. In these circumstances and in view of legal provision. The assignment of reason was implied and was a must in order to root out the possibility of an arbitrary selection or appointment and to give colour of fair play, the selection and appointment was so made. 16. The selection could have been resorted to only if it was decided and during the pendency of writ petition, appointment against newly created temporary or permanent post in the cadre is to be filled in. When the post was created the position was not clear but subsequently by issuing appointment letter making it a cadre post and resorting to selection process during pendency of writ petition it was made more than clear that it is a post in the cadre. 17. In view of what has been said above, the appointment of Suparsh Awasthi as Deputy Director of Sports in the cadre post of Deputy Director of Sports and its extension which was void deserves to be quashed. 18. In view of the above, Writ Petition No. 8868 of 1987 and Writ Petition No. 3063 of 1988 are allowed to the extent that the appointment of Suparth Awasthi on cadre post of Deputy Director of Sports is quashed and the subsequent order of extension of period of appointment is also quashed However, it is made clear that our judgment is in respect of cadre post and does not apply in case of ex-cadre post In case an ex-cadre post is created or appointment against the same is made, this judgment will no apply. A mandamus is also issued to opposite party No, 1 not to allow Suparsh Awasthi to continue on the post of Deputy Director of Sports. In case any appointment on the post of Deputy Director of Sports is to be made, the same will be made in accordance with rules. The order regarding rejection of candidature of petitioners to Writ Petition No. 8868 of 1987 and 3963 of 1988 is also quashed. Writ Petition No. 2964 of 1988 in which relief against the appointment of Suparsh Awasthi and prayer for not appointing an outsider has been made is also allowed to the above extent. 19. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.