JUDGMENT V.K. Shukla, J.(Oral) Bodhisatwa Samaj Seva Sansthan U.P. claiming itself to be registered under Socities Registration Act, 1860 with its registered office at Bhatkal Mod, Block Kopaganj, District Mau through its President Jitendra Kumar Goel has approached this Court complaining therein that large scale scam is there in the department concerned and respondent nos. 4 and 5 should be transferred for free and fair enquiry regarding the scam in the department concerned. 2. On the presentation of the writ petition on 24.9.2015 following order has been passed; "Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by the Standing Counsel. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are represented by Sri Lal Sahab Yadav, Advocate. Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 5. Let personal affidavit be filed by the Chief Secretary for explaining as to how an I.A.S. officer can be permitted to hold office of Secretary, Nagar Vikas even after he has attained the age of superannuation and that too without any extension being granted in his favour by the Central Government, and as to how respondent no. 5 can be permitted to continue to work at the same place for nearly 10 years at a stretch when he is a holder of a transferable post. Respondent no. 5 may also respond to the allegations made against him in the writ petition by the next date. The matter shall come up as unlisted on 05.10.2015. Amendment application filed today is taken on record." 3. Amendment application was also filed wherein following paragraphs were permitted to be added; "19A. That the respondent no. 4 Sri S.P. Singh, who is holding the post of Secretary (IAS Cadre) in Nagar Vikas Department, Lucknow, retired on 28th February, 2013 and without granting any extension by the Central Government, he is enjoying the aforesaid post, which is very serious matter and requires strict and action thereon inasmuch as he is holding the post of IAS cadre without any authority of law, which may not be allowed. It is further submitted that even the State Government has no such power to grant extension to the respondent no. 4 to hold such post. 19B. That not only this, the respondent no. It is further submitted that even the State Government has no such power to grant extension to the respondent no. 4 to hold such post. 19B. That not only this, the respondent no. 4 Sri S.P. Singh is also holding the post of OSD and Ex-officio Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Urban Development, Urban Employment and Poverty Unmulan Programee Department and Director SUDA and Secretary, Minority Welfare and Muslim Waqf + Ganga in addition to the post of Secretary, Nagar Vikas Department. 19C. That in the State of Uttar Pradesh, a large number of IAS Cadre officers are in waiting without holding any post on one hand, on the other hand retired person like the respondent no. 4 are being given important posts in the State of Uttar Pradesh to fulfill the political motives of ruling party, which may not be allowed as per law. and following prayer was also sought to be added; "VI. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to restrain the respondent no. 4 from functioning on the IAS Cadre posts held by him. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary of U.P. and Sri Abdul Samad on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by Sri A.K. Singh, Executive Engineer, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, refuting allegations made as against him. In the affidavit, so filed by the Chief Secretary, in compliance of order passed by this Court, to the query so raised following statement of fact has been mentioned. Same are as follows; "17. That the respondent no. 4 was due to retire on 31.7.2014 and the Government felt that he had gained a lot of experience with regard to the specialized field of Urban Development and Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation Programmee. Respondent no. 4 was also holding the charge of Secretary, Department of Minority Welfare, Muslim Waqf. A proposal was put up by the Administrative Department (Urban Development Department and Minority Welfare and Muslim Waqf Department) for re-appointment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation Programmee and Director SUDA and Secretary, Minority Welfare and Muslim Waqf Department. 18. A proposal was put up by the Administrative Department (Urban Development Department and Minority Welfare and Muslim Waqf Department) for re-appointment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation Programmee and Director SUDA and Secretary, Minority Welfare and Muslim Waqf Department. 18. That the proposal was examined at the State Government in the Department of Appointment, Personnel and Finance Department and after getting the approval of competent authority, temporary ex-cadre post of OSD, Ex-officio Secretary and Director was created w.e.f. 1.8.2014 to 28.2.2015 vide order no. U.O. - 175/Do-1-2014-4-1(22)-2014 dated 30.7.2014 issued from the Appointment Department. 19. That the respondent no. 4 was appointed on the said ex-cadre temporary post vide order No. U.O. - 175 (2)/Do-1-2014-4-1(22)-2014 dated 30.7.2014. 20. That the order of creation of temporary post of OSD was due to expire on 28.2.2015 and therefore again the Administrative Department put up a proposal for extension of term of the said ex-cadre temporary post up to 29.2.2016. The proposal was examined at the State Government in the Department of Appointment, Personnel and Finance Department and after getting the approval of competent authority, an order No. U.O. - 11(1)/Do-1-2015-4-1 (22)-2014 dated 27.2.2015 was issued regarding extension of tenure of temporary ex-cadre post of OSD w.e.f. 1.3.2015 to 29.2.2016 and the respondent no. 4 was appointed on the same date i.e. 27.2.2015. 21. That it is further submitted that the respondent no. 4 is holding the post of OSD and in this capacity he is discharging the duty of Secretary Urban Development, Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation Programmee, Minority Welfare, Muslim Waqf Department. Hence approval of Central Government was not taken. 22. That the respondent no. 4 was also holding charge as Ex-officio Director, SUDA, but on 1.4.2015 another officer of PCS rank has been appointed as Director, SUDA and the respondent no. 4 has seized to be Ex-officio Director of SUDA, thereafter. 25. That with respect to second query made by the Hon'ble Court in its order dated 24.9.2015. It has been incorrectly alleged by the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 has been posted at Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad for more than 10 years. In fact, respondent no. 5 has been transferred by the Government vide order dated 24.2.2009 from Lucknow Nagar Nigam to Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam and in pursuance of the above transfer order the respondent no. It has been incorrectly alleged by the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 has been posted at Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad for more than 10 years. In fact, respondent no. 5 has been transferred by the Government vide order dated 24.2.2009 from Lucknow Nagar Nigam to Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam and in pursuance of the above transfer order the respondent no. 5 has joined on 27.2.2009. The allegation of the political approach are baseless and without any basis, as such, the same is denied." 4. The said amendment application in question has been allowed on 5.10.2015 and following order was passed after taking into account the affidavit filed on behalf of Chief Secretary of U.P. This Court on 5.10.2015 proceeded to restrain the respondent no. 4 Shree Prakash Singh from functioning as Secretary of Urban Planning and Development Department, Nagariya Rojgar Evam Garibi Unmulan Karyakram Vibhag, U.P. Government and Secretary, Alpsankhyak Kalyan Evam Muslim Waqf Department, U.P. Government. The said order is as follows; "Sri C.S.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is present on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri L.S. Yadav, Advocate and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate have put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively. They pray for and are granted three days time to file counter affidavit. Petitioners shall have three days' time to file rejoinder affidavit thereafter. Respondent no.4, Shree Prakash Singh is stated to be the Secretary of Urban Planning and Development, Government of U.P. at Lucknow. This writ petition has been filed by a society for directing respondent nos. 4 and 5 to hold free and fair enquiry in the financial improprieties committed at various Nagar Nigams and Nagar Palikas of the State of Uttar Pradesh. In paragraph-17 of the writ petition it is stated that since the date on which respondent no.4 has been appointed as the Secretary of the Urban Planning and Development, no audit of any Nagar Nigam or Nagar Palika in the State of Uttar Pradesh has taken place. For the last 20 years, there has been no audit of any local body. By means of the amendment application, paragraph nos. 19A to 19C, ground nos. For the last 20 years, there has been no audit of any local body. By means of the amendment application, paragraph nos. 19A to 19C, ground nos. G to I as well as prayer for restraining respondent no.4 from functioning as Secretary, Urban Planning and Development are sought to be introduced in the petition. The amendment prayed for in the present writ petition is allowed. Let necessary amendments be made within 48 hours. This Court while entertaining the present writ petition had required the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file his personal affidavit indicating as to how a person, who had been member of Indian Administrative Services and has attained the age of superannuation, can be permitted to function on the cadre post of Secretary, Urban Planning and Development. An affidavit has been filed today on behalf of Chief Secretary of the State, which makes a very interesting reading. The Chief Secretary with reference to the orders enclosed as Annexure Nos. 1 to 4 to the affidavit, submits that there had been re-appointment of respondent no.4 and therefore, he is entitled to function as the Secretary, Urban Planning and Development. In our opinion, the stand so taken by the Chief Secretary is based on complete misreading of the documents which have been enclosed as Annexure nos. 1 to 4 to the affidavit dated 30th July, 2014, 30th July, 2014, dated 27th February, 2015 and dated 27th February, 2015 respectively. We find that by means of the first and second orders dated 20th July, 2014, an ex-cadre post was created under the order of the State Government for a period commencing from 1st August, 2014 to 27th February, 2015, titled "Officer-On-Special Duty/Ex-officio Secretary" for Urban Planning and Development Department, Nagariya Rojgar avam Garibi Unmulan Karyakram Vibhag, U.P. Government and Director, SUDA, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Secretary, Alpsankhyak Kalyan avam Muslim Waqf Department, U.P. Government and it is against this ex-cadre post, respondent no.4, then Secretary of Urban Planning and Development, who was to retire on 31st July, 2014, had been reappointed for the period 1st August, 2014 to 28th February, 2015. By means of the order dated 27th February, 2015, the post of Officer-On-Special Duty referred to above has been extended for the period 1st March, 2015 to 29th February, 2016 and by means of the subsequent order of the same date i.e. 27th February, 2015, the appointment of respondent no.4 as Officer-On-Special Duty has been extended till 29th February, 2016. In our opinion, these orders only mean that respondent no.4 who was earlier a member of Indian Administrative Services cadre and was working as the Secretary of the various departments of the State of Uttar Pradesh would also act act as the Officer-On-Special Duty for the period mentioned therein. Respondent no.4 Shree Prakash Singh has retired from the Indian Administrative Services on 31st July, 2014 after attaining the age of superannuation. We are of the prima facie opinion that no person can hold a cadre post beyond the age of superannuation. Since the Indian Administrative Services cadre are all Indian Government Services, the extension/re-appointment, if any, in respect of the cadre members, can only be made by the Central Government. The State Government has no authority of law to grant extension/re-appointment to a cadre member of Indian Administrative Services officers beyond the age of superannuation. We are also of the opinion that the orders which have been issued in the matter of creation of ex-cadre post of Officer-On-Special Duty and thereby giving appointment to respondent no.4 for a time bound period, cannot be interpreted to mean that he becomes the Secretary entitled to hold Indian Administrative Services cadre post in the State of Uttar Pradesh. We, therefore, restrain respondent no.4, Shree Prakash Singh from functioning as the Secretary of Urban Planning and Development Department, Nagariya Rojgar avam Garibi Unmulan Karyakram Vibhag, U.P. Government and Secretary, Alpsankhyak Kalyan avam Muslim Waqf Department, U.P. Government. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent no.4 Shree Prakash Singh, has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. & Others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II), for the proposition that the State has the power to make appointments, which include appointment on contract basis. & Others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II), for the proposition that the State has the power to make appointments, which include appointment on contract basis. The judgment in the facts of the case is clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as the stand taken by Sri Ashok Khare is not only contrary to the stand taken by the Chief Secretary qua re-appointment of respondent no.4, even otherwise, there are rules, which regulate appointment on the post of Secretary in a State Government. In the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy (Supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the on a post appointment in respect whereof there were no rules or statutory provisions applicable in the matter of appointment. We may record that the post of Secretary to the Government is included in the I.A.S. (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, so far as the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned. The Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 contemplates filling of the cadre posts by cadre officers only (Reference Rule-8) and in certain exigency, temporary appointment of non-cadre officers to cadre posts is permissible under Rule-9. The conditions whereof have not been demonstrated to be satisfied before us nor is there any pleading in that regard. So far as the issue of locus of the petitioners is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that serious issues of public importance pertaining to the administration in the State, are involved. We would entertain the present writ petition and shall examine the merits. The issue qua this petition being converted into a Public Interest Litigation shall be examined after petitioners have an opportunity to respond to the allegations made in the counter affidavits filed today. The Chief Secretary of the State is directed to order for external audit of all Nagar Nigams, Nagar Palikas etc. of the State immediately. We further find from paragraph-25 of the affidavit of the Chief Secretary that respondent no.5, A.K. Singh has been posted at one and same place as Executive Engineer, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad since 24th February, 2009. As on date he has been completed more than 6 years and 7 months of posting at one and the same station. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the normal tenure for posting at a particular place in accordance with the Government Policy guidelines is 6 years. As on date he has been completed more than 6 years and 7 months of posting at one and the same station. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the normal tenure for posting at a particular place in accordance with the Government Policy guidelines is 6 years. Absolutely no reasons have been disclosed as to what is so special about respondent no.5, A.K. Singh to be permitted to be continue at one and same station beyond six years. Respondent no.5 A.K. Singh has filed his counter affidavit stating therein that there are four other persons who are posted as Executive Engineer in Nagar Nigam, Agra, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur and Nagar Nigam, Kanpur for more than 12, 11, 14 and 15 years respectively at a stretch. The situation is alarming and the inaction on the part of the State Government is further alarming, as the Chief Secretary of the State despite being confronted with the facts, refuses to act and tries to defend the continuance of the aforesaid officer on the ground that the period of 10 years has not elapsed and the statement made in the present writ petition is incorrect. We require the Chief Secretary to ensure that transfer policy is implemented in letter and in spirit and all employees are treated at par and there should not be any discrimination in the continuance of the officers/employees at a particular station contrary to the policy guidelines. Action taken by the Chief Secretary in respect of respondent no.5 and persons working at Nagar Nigam, Agra, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur and Nagar Nigam, Kanpur referred to above be reported to this Court by the next date. So far as the complaint of respondent no.5 is concerned we deem it fit and proper to provide that if any uncalled pressure has been brought upon him to act in a particular manner, then the normal course to be adopted by such officer should be to lodge a first information report and not only to make complaints to higher authority. We, therefore, direct respondent no.5 to lodge a first information report against the persons, who have brought uncalled for pressure upon him. We further provide that the complaint of respondent no.5 shall be looked into by the highest officer of the department concerned and all suitable action shall be taken against the person concerned. We, therefore, direct respondent no.5 to lodge a first information report against the persons, who have brought uncalled for pressure upon him. We further provide that the complaint of respondent no.5 shall be looked into by the highest officer of the department concerned and all suitable action shall be taken against the person concerned. List this matter on 13th October, 2015." 5. The matter, thereafter, after change of roster, came up before us on 13.10.2015 and on the said date petitioner moved an application to withdraw the said petition and apprehending such a move from the petitioner, intervenors also came up before this Court by means of intervention application. This Court on 13.10.2015 passed the following order; "On the matter being taken up today, the most surprising feature that emerges before us is that an application has been moved on behalf of the petitioners with a request to withdraw the present writ petition. An application has also been moved claiming to intervene in the matter. We do not approve the way and manner in which the withdrawal application has been moved in the present case inasmuch as the order passed by this Court on earlier occasion clearly reflects that the Court has taken serious note of the existing situation and once the Court has taken serious note of the fact then prima facie joining hands with the contesting respondents in question after cognizance has been taken by this Court as fishy. In view of this, we are not passing any order on withdrawal application. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall seek instruction as to why the petitioners want to withdraw the present writ petition once he has raised issue relating to public importance. Sri U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith Sri S.M. Shukla, Advocate has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 4. Same be accepted and is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture contends that he needs short time to rebut the same. Sri C.S. Singh, Advocate has contended that affidavit by the Chief Secretary of the State as directed on the earlier occasion shall be filed within a week from today. It is made clear that at the point of time, when the Chief Secretary proceeds to file said affidavit, the details that have been given in the intervention application, for the same also specific reply should be given. It is made clear that at the point of time, when the Chief Secretary proceeds to file said affidavit, the details that have been given in the intervention application, for the same also specific reply should be given. List this writ petition on 29-10-2015. When the case is next listed, the name of Sri Kartikeya Saran, Advocate be shown as counsel of the respondent-intervenor. On the next date, the issue raised on behalf of petitioner that service bench should not hear the matter and same shall be sent to PIL Bench, shall also be considered." 6. Stay vacation application alongwith counter affidavit has been filed by Shree Prakash Singh taking stand that the action of the State Government is totally justifiable, in the facts of the case, and his engagement on a temporary civil post of Officer on Special Duty-Ex-Officio Secretary was made by the State Government in pursuance to the re-employment w.e.f. 1.8.2014 and it was not at all an extension of service and State Government is fully empowered to create such a post and give re-employment to an incumbent against ex-cadre post and, in view of this, action taken is totally justifiable one. 7. Thereafter the Chief Secretary of U.P. has proceeded to file an affidavit of compliance and therein qua various facets of the matter it has been clearly mentioned that remedial measures have already been taken for redressing the situation, that has been so pointed out by this Court. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 in response to the intervention application in question. The affidavit of compliance, that has been so filed by the Chief Secretary of U.P., the issues raised has been redressed. The said affidavit of Chief Secretary provides for as follows; "5. That in the petition the issue of audit of Nagar Nigams and Nagr Palika Parishad etc. was raised and the following directions have been given in this regard in the above referred order dated 5.10.2015. (a) The relevant extract is quoted below:- "The Chief Secretary of the State is directed to order for external audit of all Nagar Nigams, Nagar Palikas etc. of the State immediately. 6. That the direction of the Hon'ble Court was with regard to the audit of Nagar Nigams. (a) The relevant extract is quoted below:- "The Chief Secretary of the State is directed to order for external audit of all Nagar Nigams, Nagar Palikas etc. of the State immediately. 6. That the direction of the Hon'ble Court was with regard to the audit of Nagar Nigams. In this connection, the deponent has directed vide letter dated 9.10.2015 to the Director, Local Bodies to complete (External Audit) of the all Local Bodies within three months. 7. That while dealing the grievance of the petitioner with reagrd to the working of certain Class-I officers of the Centralized Palika Services the Hon'ble Court has directed that transfer policy be implemented in letter and spirit. The direction is quoted below:- "We require the Chief Secretary to ensure that transfer policy is implemented in letter and in spirit and all employees are treated at par and there should not be any discrimination in the continuance of the officers/employees at a particular station contrary to the policy guidelines. Action taken by the Chief Secretary in respect of respondent no.5 and persons working at Nagar Nigam, Agra, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur and Nagar Nigam, Kanpur referred to above be reported to this Court by the next date." That with regard to the direction narrated herein above, the deponent has ensured that the respondent no. 5 as well as all the officer which has been referred in the order dated 5.10.2015 may be transferred and accordingly, the transfer orders dated 7.10.2015 have been issued regarding all the referred officers. (d) Mr. A.K. Singh, respondent no. 5, who has also indicated in his counter affidavit that the present writ petition is not a PIL but is a sponsored litigation on behalf of a firm which is running advertising agency and also exceeded the stipulated period of the contract and flouting the norms of the Nagar Nigam. 8. That during the course of hearing on 5.10.2015, on behalf of respondent no. 5 A.K. Singh, the Executive Engineer, Ghaziabad, his grievance was referred regarding the manipulation done by a company and pressures exerted by the said company upon respondent no. 5. The deponent has ensured that the direction be issued by the department concerned regarding the enquiry upon the complaints made by respondent no. 5, Special Secretary, Nagar Nigam has already directed the Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad to compete enquiry. 9. 5. The deponent has ensured that the direction be issued by the department concerned regarding the enquiry upon the complaints made by respondent no. 5, Special Secretary, Nagar Nigam has already directed the Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad to compete enquiry. 9. That in so far as the averments made in the Intervention Application about the continuation of certain Officers at places, it is submitted that the Government has taken cognizance of the matter. In fact in transfer policy an Annual Transfer Policy has already been notified vide order dated 9.4.2015 wherein it has been provided that those Officers of Group A and Group B who has competed six years in a particular District should be transferred out of those Districts. It has further been provided that Group A and Group B Officers who have completed 10 years in a Division would be transferred out of the Division. It is further provided in the said Policy that not more than 10% of the cadre strength of any service be transferred and if it is required that the transfer beyond the aforesaid percentage is required than for Group A and Group B, permission of Hon'ble Chief Minister is required and for Group C and Group D, permission of the concerned Department is required. However, it is submitted that averments made in the intervention application as filed in the present writ petition is concerned, it is humbly submitted that the examination of service records of personnel, requires intensive scrutiny. It is also submitted that the officials involve might have been engaged in the conduct of Panchayat Elections, which may necessitate formal approval of State Election Commission, hence, it is requested one month time be granted to examine the same and to compete the process. 10. That for the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned herein above it is very much clear that the necessary steps have been taken for compliance of the order dated 5.10.2015. 10. That for the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned herein above it is very much clear that the necessary steps have been taken for compliance of the order dated 5.10.2015. It is in the interest of justice that not only the compliance affidavit may be taken on record but the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable." On the matter being taken up today, at the very outset, withdrawal application has been withdrawn and as precise issue was being raised that in service matters public interest litigation is not at all competent and maintainable, and this particular Bench has been authorized by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to hear service matters pertaining to government servants and others, as to whether the matter should be sent to the Bench hearing the public interest litigation matter, as earlier this Court in its order dated 5.10.2015 has proceeded to mention that as far as locus of petitioner is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that serious issues of public importance pertaining to administration in the State, are involved, we would entertain the present petition and shall examine the merits. The issue qua this petition being converted into Public Interest Litigation shall be examined after petitioners have an opportunity to respond to the allegations made in the counter affidavits. All the respective counsel, who have been appearing in this case made statement that as on date the only cause of action that survives and that is to be answered by this Court is in reference of continuance of respondent no. 4 Sree Prakash Singh as all other issues raised, as of now, are of no consequence as the State Government has already taken positive steps to comply with the same, in view of this, Service Bench can proceed to hear the present matter by treating the same as a writ of quo-warranto. In this background we proceed to examine the matter on the limited issue as to whether, in the present case, re-employment of Shree Prakash Singh is in accordance with law or not? Sri S.N. Pandey, Advocate, appearing for petitioner submitted that continuance of respondent no. 4 is contrary to statutory provisions, and there are some favoured officials, who have been obliged and are perpetuating themselves even after attaining the age of superannuation and respondent no. Sri S.N. Pandey, Advocate, appearing for petitioner submitted that continuance of respondent no. 4 is contrary to statutory provisions, and there are some favoured officials, who have been obliged and are perpetuating themselves even after attaining the age of superannuation and respondent no. 4 is one of them, as such, in the facts of interference be made for public good. Countering the said submission Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Piyush Shukla, Ms. Sanskriti Pathak and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate, submitted that here the credentials of petitioner's society are of highly doubtful character and even otherwise the action of State is not at all contrary to any statutory provision rather the said action is well within the domain of State and expressly permitted/backed by the provisions of the Constitution. Sri U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.M. Shukla, Advocate, as well as Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Udyan Nandan, Advocate, have entered appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4 and they have toed the same line of argument, as the State has, that re-employment in the facts of case has rightly been made and there is no violation of statutory rules or regulation, rather as per the exigencies such a call has been bonafidely taken by the State Government. Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate, appearing with Sri Kartikey Saran, Advocate, submitted that intervenors have no direct lis with respondent no. 4 and grievance of intervenors has been adequately addressed as per the affidavit of compliance filed by the Chief Secretary before this Court. Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing with Sri Om Prakash Tripathi/Sri V.K. Singh, Advocates, submitted that they have made their stand clear in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced, as it is the pith and substance that matters and label of writ petition has hardly any role to play in the matter of exercise of authority/jurisdiction provided case has been made out for exercise of such authority/jurisdiction, provided requisite material/pleading is available on record and, accordingly, as far as present writ petition is concerned, we are treating the writ petition as one for exercise of authority by way of issuance of writ of quo-warranto qua functioning of respondent no. 4 for the reason that here this Court, while passing order on 5.10.2015 clearly proceeded to make mention that so far as the issue of locus of petitioner is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that serious issues of public importance pertaining to administration of justice are involved. We would entertain the writ petition and shall examine the merits. Looking to the nature of issues involved the earlier co-ordinate Bench hearing the matter had made it amply clear that the matter would be examined on merits, and as in the matter of issuance of writ of quo-warranto, strict rules of locus stands relaxed, and the incumbent in question approaching the Court has to satisfy that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper. Thereafter, on prima facie recording of satisfaction, inevitably same would be followed by enquiry as to whether the appointment of alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. Here such a stage has already crossed as this Court on 5.10.2015 has already on prima facie basis formed opinion that no person can hold a cadre post beyond the age of superannuation and the State Government has no authority of law to grant extension/reappointment to a cadre member of Indian Administrative Services Officers beyond the age of superannuation and further mention has been made that the orders which have been issued in the mater of creation of ex-cadre post of Officer on Special Duty and thereby giving appointment to respondent no. 4 cannot be interpreted to mean that he becomes the Secretary entitled to hold Indian Administrative Services Cadre post in the State of Uttar Pradesh and simultaneously Shree Prakash Singh has been restrained from functioning as Secretary of Urban Planning and Development Department, Nagriya Rojgar Evam Garibi Unmulan Karyakram Vibhag U.P. Government and Secretary, Alpsankhayak Kalyan Evam Muslim Waqf Department, U.P. Government. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the judgment of Apex Court in the case of University of Mysoore Vs. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the judgment of Apex Court in the case of University of Mysoore Vs. C.D. Govind Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 wherein the real purport/purpose of quo-warranto proceedings has been explained in following terms: "As Halsbury has observed "An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped an office, 'franchise, or liberty, to, inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order that the right to the office or franchise might be determined:" Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an inde-pendent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has no title, he would be ousted from that office by judicial order. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointments to public office against law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right. These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office, who might be allowed to continue either with the connivance of the Executive or by reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not." Apex Court in the case of Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & others, 2010 (9) SCC 655 , expressed opinion that except for writ of quo warranto, public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters. A writ of quo warranto lies only when appointment is contrary to statutory provisions. Relevant paragraphs are as follows; "16. Writ of quo warranto lies only when appointment is contrary to a statutory provision. A writ of quo warranto lies only when appointment is contrary to statutory provisions. Relevant paragraphs are as follows; "16. Writ of quo warranto lies only when appointment is contrary to a statutory provision. In High Court of, (three-Judges Bench) Hon'ble S.B. Sinha, J. concurring with the majority view held: "22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact of the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. (See R.K. Jain v. Union of India 2, SCC para 74.) 23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (See Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy. to Govt. of Haryana)" 17. In Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. V. Govt. of Haryana, (2002) 6 SCC 269 , the following conclusion in para 11 is relevant. "11. ... .... The High Court did not exercise its writ jurisdiction in the absence of any averment to the effect that the aforesaid officers had misused their authority and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the appellants. In our view the High Court should have considered the challenge to the appointment of the officials concerned as members of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground of breach of statutory provisions. The mere fact that they had not acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the appellant could not lend validity to their appointment, if otherwise, the appointment was in breach of statutory provisions of a mandatory nature. It has, therefore, become necessary for us to consider the validity of the impugned notification said to have been issued in breach of statutory provision." 18. In B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 731 , this Court held: "49. The law is well settled. It has, therefore, become necessary for us to consider the validity of the impugned notification said to have been issued in breach of statutory provision." 18. In B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 731 , this Court held: "49. The law is well settled. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine, at the outset, as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules." 19. It is clear from the above decisions that even for issuance of writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. In the later part of our judgment, we would discuss how the appellant herein was considered and appointed as Chairman and whether he satisfied the relevant statutory provisions." 8. Respondent no. 4 has filed his response to show and substantiate that his appointment/continuance is not at all contrary to statutory provisions and State has inherent authority to make such arrangements for good governance, as has been done in the present case and he is not at all occupying cadre post mentioned in IAS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulation rather occupying the post created in accordance with law that can be filled up by persons of respective services, persons having specialised knowledge and even from retired IAS Officers. 9. The fact on which there is no dispute that Shree Prakash Singh has been an officer of the cadre of Indian Administrative Service and this is accepted position that he has attained his age of superannuation on 31.7.2014 and from the very next date i.e. w.e.f. 1.8.2014 it is reflected from the record that he has been sought to be reappointed against an ex-cadre post designated as "Officer on Special Duty"/Ex-Officio-Secretary for Urban Planning and Development Department, Nagriya Rojgar Evam Garibi Unmulan Karykram Vibhag, U.P. Government and Director SUDA, U.P. Lucknow and Secretary, Alpsankhyak Kalyan Evam Muslim Waqf Department, U.P. Government. For ready reference, the order dated 30.7.204 of the State Government, the order of appointment of the same date, the order of extension i.e. dated 27.2.2015 and the order of appointment of the same date are being quoted below; " mRrj izns'k 'kklu fu;qfDr vuqHkkx&1 la[;k&;w0vks0&175@nks&1&2014&4&1¼22½@2014 y[kuÅ% fnukad 30 tqykbZ] 2014 dk;kZy;&Kkr v/kksgLrk{kjh dks ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd uxj fodkl uxjh; jkstxkj ,oa xjhch mUewyu dk;Zdze foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ,oa funs'kd] lwMk] mRrj izns'k] y[kuÅ rFkk vYila[;d dY;k.k ,oa eqfLye oDQ foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ls lacaf/kr dk;ksZ ds lqpk::i ls fu"iknu gsrq Jh jkT;iky egksn; fo'ks"k dk;kZf/kdkjh] insu lfpo] uxj fodkl uxjh; jkstxkj ,oa xjhch mUewyu dk;Zdze foHkkx]mRrj izns'k 'kklu ,oa funs'kd] lwMk] mRrj izns'k y[kuÅ rFkk lfpo] vYila[;d dY;k.k ,oa eqfLye oDQ foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ds ,d fu%laoxhZ; vLFkk;h in dh fnukad 01&08&2014 ls 28&02&2015 rd ds fy, l`ftr djus dh lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSA 2& mi;qZDr lEcU/k esa gksus okyk O;; pkyw foRrh; o"kZ ds vuqnku la[;k 78 ds vUrxZr ys[kk 'kh"kZd ^2052&lfopky lkekU; lsok,a&vkkstusRrj&090&lfpoky&03 lfpoky;^^ ds v/khu lqlaxr ekud enksa ds v/khu Mkyk tk;sxkA 3& ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh; la[;k&bZ&5&955@nl&2014] fnukad 28&07&2014 }kjk izkIr mudh lgefr ls tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSA jktho dqekj izeq[k lfpoA ^^mRrj izns'k 'kklu fu;qfDr vuqHkkx&1 la[;k&;w0vks0&175¼2½@nks&1&2015&4&1¼22½@2014 y[kuÅ% fnukad 30 tqykbZ] 2014 dk;kZy;&Kkr v/kksgLrk{kjh dks ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd dk;kZy; Kki la[;k&;w0vks0&175@nks&1&2014&4@1¼22½@2014] fnukWd 30 tqykbZ] 2014 }kjk uxj fodkl uxjh; jkstxkj ,oa xjhch mUewyu dk;Zdze foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ,oa funs'kd] lwMk] mRrj izns'k] y[kuÅ rFkk vYila[;d dY;k.k ,oa eqfLye oDQ foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ls lacaf/kr dk;ksZ ds lqpk: :i ls fu"iknu gsrq fo'ks"k dk;kZf/kdkjh] insu lfpo] uxj fodkl uxjh; jkstxkj ,oa xjhch mUewyu dk;Zdze foHkkx]mRrj izns'k 'kklu ,oa funs'kd] lwMk] mRrj izns'k y[kuÅ rFkk lfpo] vYila[;d dY;k.k ,oa eqfLye oDQ foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ds l`ftr ,d fu%laoxhZ; vLFkk;h in Jh jkT;iky egksn; Jhizdk'k flg] lfpo]uxj fodkl uxjh; jkstxkj ,oa xjhch mUewyu dk;Zdze foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ,oa funs'kd] lwMk] mRrj izns'k y[kuÅ rFkk lfpo] vYila[;d dY;k.k ,oa eqfLye oDQ foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu dks fnukad 01&08&2014 ls 28&02&2015 rd dh vof/k ds fuEufyf[kr 'krksZ ,oa izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu iqufuZ;qDr fd;s tkus dh lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSA 1& Jh Jhizdk'k flag dks vLFkk;h ljdkjh lsod ekuk tk;sxkA 2& iquZ;kstu dh vof/k esa Jh Jhizdk'k flag dks og fu;r osru vuqeU; gksxk tks muds }kjk vfUre vkgfjr osru esa ls 'kq) isa'ku dh /kujkf'k ¼jkf'kdj.k ds iwoZ ;fn dksbZ gks½ dks ?kVkus ds ckn vk;s vFkok iquZ;ksftr in ds osrueku ds vf/kdre~] blesa tks Hkh de gks ls vf/kd u gksxkA bl izdkj fu/kkZfjr osru rFkk 'kq) isa'ku ds ;ksx ij egWxkbZ HkRrk vuqeU; gksxkA iquZ;kstu dh vof/k esa isa'ku ij i`Fkd ls egWxkbZ jkgr vuqeU; ugha gksxkA 3&Jh Jhizdk'k flag dks mDr vof/k esa foRrh; fu;e laxzg [k.M&2] Hkkx 2&4 ds lgk;d fu;e 157, rFkk jkT; ljdkj }kjk le;= ij ikfjr vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj vLFkk;h vf/kdkfj;ksa dh HkkWfr vodk'k ns; gksxk ijUrq mDr vof/k esa vftZr vodk'k dk udnhdj.k vuqeU; ugha gksxkA 4& mDr vof/k dh x.kuk isa'ku ds fy, ugha dh tk;sxh rFkk in dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus vFkok mldh lekfIr ij dksbZ ;k=k&HkRrk ns; ugha gksxkA 5& mDr vof/k esa Jh Jhizdk'k flag dks ;k=k&HkRrk rFkk nSfud HkRrk muds osru o 'kq) isa'ku ds ;ksx ds vuqlkj vuqeU; njksa ij ns; gksxh tSlk fd ;k=k&HkRrk 16, esa izkfo/kku gS] vfUre vkgfjr osru ds vuqlkj vuqeU; njksa ij ns; gksaxsA 6& Jh Jhizdk'k flag dh mDr vof/k esa vLFkk;h rnFkZ isa'ku dh o`f) o jkgr] ;fn dksbZ gks] vuqeU; ugh gksxhA 7& mDRk fu%loaxhZ; in dh izkfLFkfr lfpo in ds led{k gksxh vkSj Jh Jhizdk'k flag dks ogh lqfo/kk;sa vuqeU; gksxh] tks mUgsa lsokfuo`fRr ds le; vuqeU; FkhA 2& mi;qZDr lEcU/k esa gksus okyk O;; pkyw foRrh; o"kZ ds vuqnku la[;k 78 ds vUrxZr ys[kk 'kh"kZd ^2052&lfopky lkekU; lsok,a&vkkstusRrj&090&lfpoky&03 lfpoky;^^ ds v/khu lqlaxr ekud enksa ds v/khu Mkyk tk;sxkA 3& ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh; la[;k&lk&3&736@nl&2014] fnukad 28&07&2014 }kjk izkIr mudh lgefr ls tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSA jktho dqekj izeq[k lfpoA^^ ^^mRrj izns'k 'kklu fu;qfDr vuqHkkx&1 la[;k&;w0vks0&1@nks&1&2015&4&1¼22½@2014 y[kuÅ% fnukad 27 Qjojh] 2015 dk;kZy;&Kkr uxj fodkl uxjh; jkstxkj ,oa xjhch mUewyu dk;Zdze foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ,oa funs'kd] lwMk] mRrj izns'k] y[kuÅ rFkk vYila[;d dY;k.k ,oa eqfLye oDQ foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ls lacaf/kr dk;ksZ ds lqpk::i ls fu"iknu gsrq fo'ks"k dk;kZf/kdkjh] insu lfpo] uxj fodkl uxjh; jkstxkj ,oa xjhch mUewyu dk;Zdze foHkkx]mRrj izns'k 'kklu ,oa funs'kd] lwMk] mRrj izns'k y[kuÅ rFkk lfpo] vYila[;d dY;k.k ,oa eqfLye oDQ foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ds ,d fu%laoxhZ; vLFkk;h in dks fu;qfDr vuqHkkx&1 ds dk;kZy; Kki la[;k&;w0vks0&175@nks&1&2014&4@1¼22½@2014 fnukad 30&7&2014 }kjk fnukad 01&08&2014 ls 28&02&2015 rd ds fy, l`ftr fd;k x;k gSA mDr in dh foRrh; o"kZ 2015&16 esa Hkh vko';drk cuh gqbZ gSA vr% ,rn~}kjk Jh jkT;iky egksn; mDr fu%laoxhZ; vLFkk;h in dh fujUrjrk fnukWd 01&03&2015 ls 29&2&2016 rd c 2& bl vof/k esa Jh Jhizdk'k flag dks osru cS.M&4] lkn`'; osru cS.M@osrueku :i;k 37400&67000] lkn`'; xzsM osru :i;k 10000@& ds vUrxZr iqufuZ;qDr le>k tk;sxk rFkk bUgsa og fu;r osru vuqeU; gksxk tks muds }kjk vfUre vkgfjr osru esa ls 'kq) isa'ku dh /kujkf'k ¼jkf'kdj.k ds iwoZ ;fn dksbZ gks½ dks ?kVkus ds ckn vk;s vFkok bl in ds osrueku ds vf/kdre~] blesa tks Hkh de gks ls vf/kd u gksxkA bl izdkj fu/kkZfjr osru rFkk 'kq) isa'ku ds ;ksx ij egWxkbZ HkRrk vuqeU; gksxkA bl vof/k esa isa'ku ij i`Fkd ls egWxkbZ jkgr vuqeU; ugha gksxkA 3&Jh Jhizdk'k flag dks mDr vof/k esa foRrh; fu;e laxzg [k.M&2] Hkkx 2&4 ds lgk;d fu;e 157, rFkk jkT; ljdkj }kjk le;= ij ikfjr vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj vLFkk;h vf/kdkfj;ksa dh HkkWfr vodk'k ns; gksxk ijUrq mDr vof/k esa vftZr vodk'k dk udnhdj.k vuqeU; ugha gksxkA 4& mDr vof/k dh x.kuk isa'ku ds fy, ugha dh tk;sxh rFkk in dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus vFkok mldh lekfIr ij dksbZ ;k=k&HkRrk ns; ugha gksxkA 5& mDr vof/k esa Jh Jhizdk'k flag dks ;k=k&HkRrk rFkk nSfud HkRrk muds osru o 'kq) isa'ku ds ;ksx ds vuqlkj vuqeU; njksa ij ns; gksxh tSlk fd ;k=k&HkRrk 16 , esa izkfo/kku gS] vfUre vkgfjr osru ds vuqlkj vuqeU; njksa ij ns; gksaxsA 6& Jh Jhizdk'k flag dh mDr vof/k esa vLFkk;h rnFkZ isa'ku dh o`f) o jkgr] ;fn dksbZ gks] vuqeU; ugh gksxhA 7& mDRk fu%loaxhZ; in dh izkfLFkfr lfpo in ds led{k gksxh vkSj Jh Jhizdk'k flag dks ogh lqfo/kk;sa vuqeU; gksxh] tks mUgsa lsokfuo`fRr ds le; vuqeU; FkhA 2& mi;qZDr lEcU/k esa gksus okyk O;; pkyw foRrh; o"kZ ds vuqnku la[;k 78 ds vUrxZr ys[kk 'kh"kZd ^2052&lfpoky lkekU; lsok,a&vkkstusRrj&090&lfpoky&03 lfpoky;^^ ds v/khu lqlaxr ekud enksa ds v/khu Mkyk tk;sxkA 3& ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh; la[;k&lk&3&153@nl&2015] fnukad 27 Qjojh] 2015 }kjk izkIr mudh lgefr ls tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSA lat; dqekj flag ;kno la;qDr lfpoA "" 10. A bare perusal of the letter of the State Government dated 30.7.2014 would go to show that the State Government in its wisdom has proceeded to create ex-cadre a purely temporary post for the period starting w.e.f. 1.8.2014 to 28.2.2015 and in reference to the expenditure to be borne out in current financial year financial provisions have been made from Grant No. 78 under Accounts Head 2052-General Secretariat Service' and the said order in question has been passed after taking due concurrence from the Finance Department and the letter dated 30.7.2014 shows that the State Government for the purposes of efficient execution of the urban planning and development department and others has proceeded to reappoint respondent no. 4 as Officer on Special Duty-Ex-Officio Secretary Nagariya Rojgar Evam Garibi Unmulan Karyakram Vibhag, U.P. Government and Secretary, Alpsankhyak Kalyan Evam Muslim Waqf Department, U.P. Government and Director SUDA. Thereafter once again on the same pattern tenure of post has been extended and resultantly tenure of respondent no. 4 has also been extended w.e.f. 1.3.2015. 11. The issue i.e. engaging the attention of this Court is as to whether the action of the State Government in re-employing Shree Prakash Singh is in accordance with law or it has the impact of violating/breaching the law by all means. Shree Prakash Singh has been a member of Indian Administrative Service before he attained his age of superannuation. In order to understand the issue, that has been argued before us, we proceed to examine the constitutional provisions as well as statutory provisions relevant for answering the issue raised. 12. Under Article 312 of the Constitution, Indian Administrative Service (IAS) is deemed to be an All India Service and in the said direction All India Service Act, 1951 has been enacted by the Parliament and it clearly proceeds to make a mention that it is All India Service. Indian Administrative Service (IAS) is the premier administrative civil service of Government of India. IAS officers hold key and strategic positions in the Union Government; States and Public Sector Undertaking and at other places. Section 3 of All India Service Act, 1951, authorizes the Central Government to make Rules in consultation with the State Government and, accordingly, Central Government has framed Rules known as IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954. Relevant IAS (Cadre) Rules 1954 provides for as follows; "2. Section 3 of All India Service Act, 1951, authorizes the Central Government to make Rules in consultation with the State Government and, accordingly, Central Government has framed Rules known as IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954. Relevant IAS (Cadre) Rules 1954 provides for as follows; "2. Definitions:- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires - (a) ''Cadre officer' means a member of the Indian Administrative Service; (b) ''Cadre post' means any of the post specified under item I of each cadre in schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955. (c) ''State' means [a State specified in the First Schedule to the constitution and includes a Union Territory.] (d) ''State Government concerned', in relation to a Joint cadre, means the Joint Cadre Authority. 3. Constitution of Cadres- 3(1) There shall be constituted for each State or group of States an Indian Administrative Service Cadre. 3(2) The Cadre so constituted for a State or a group of States is hereinafter referred to as a ''State Cadre' or, as the case may be, a ''Joint Cadre'. 4. Strength of Cadres- 4(1) The strength and composition of each of the cadres constituted under rule 3 shall be determined by regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments in this behalf and until such regulations are made, shall be as in force immediately before the commencement of these rules. 4(2) The Central Government shall, [ordinarily] at the interval of every (five) years, re-examine the strength and composition of each such cadre in consultation with the State Government or the State Governments concerned and may make such alterations therein as it deems fit: Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to affect the power of the Central Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre at any other time: Provided further that State Government concerned may add for a period not exceeding two year [and with the approval of the Central Government for a further period not exceeding three years,] to a State or Joint Cadre one or more posts carrying duties or responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts. 5. Allocation of members to various cadres- (1) The allocation of cadre officers to the various cadres shall be made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government or the State Government concerned. 5. Allocation of members to various cadres- (1) The allocation of cadre officers to the various cadres shall be made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government or the State Government concerned. 5(2) The Central Government may, with the concurrence of the State Government concerned transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another cadre. 6. Deputation of cadre officers- 6(1) A cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned and the Central Government, be deputed for service under the Central Government or another State Government or under a company, association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or by another State Government. Provided that in case of any disagreement, the matter shall be decided by the Central Government and the State Government or State Governments concerned shall give effect to the decision of the Central Government. 6(2) A cadre officer may also be deputed for service under - (i) a company, association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by a State Government, a Municipal Corporation or a Local Body, by the State Government on whose cadre he is borne; and (ii) an international organisation, an autonomous body not controlled by the Government, or a private body, by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government on whose cadre he is borne: Provided that no cadre officer shall be deputed to any organisation or body of the type referred to in item (ii), except with his consent: Provided further that no cadre officer shall be deputed under sub rule (1) or sub-rule (2) to a post 8other than a post under the Central Government or under a company, association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government, carrying a prescribed pay which is less than, or a pay scale, the maximum of which is less than, the basic pay he would have drawn in the cadre post but for his deputation. 7. Postings- All appointments to cadre posts shall be made:- (a) in the case of a State Cadre, by the State Govt.; and (b) in the case of a Joint Cadre, by the State Government concerned. 7. Postings- All appointments to cadre posts shall be made:- (a) in the case of a State Cadre, by the State Govt.; and (b) in the case of a Joint Cadre, by the State Government concerned. (c)(i) The Central Government, in consultation with the State Government or State Governments concerned, may determine the tenure of all or any of the cadre posts specified for the State concerned in item 1 of the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulation, 1955. (c)(ii) A cadre officer, appointed to any post for which the tenure has been so determined, shall hold the minimum tenure as prescribed except in the event of promotion, retirement, deputation outside the State or training exceeding two months. (c)(iii) An officer may be transferred before the minimum prescribed tenure only on the recommendation of a Committee on Minimum Tenure as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules. 8. Cadre and ex-cadre posts to be filled by cadre officers- (1) Save as otherwise provided in these rules every cadre post shall be filled by a cadre officer. 8(2) A Cadre officer shall not hold an ex-cadre post in excess of the number specified for the concerned State under item 5 of the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955. 8(3) The State Government may, with the prior approval of the Central Government, appoint a cadre officer to hold an ex-cadre post in excess of the number specified for the concerned State in item 5 of the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955 and, for so long as the approval of the Central Government remains in force, the said ex-cadre post shall be deemed to be an addition to the number specified in item 5 of the said Schedule. 9. 9. Temporary appointment of non-cadre officer to cadre posts- 9(1) A cadre post in a State shall not be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer except in the following case; namely:- (a) if there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy: Provided that when a suitable cadre officer becomes available, the person who is not a cadre officer, shall be replaced by the cadre officer; Provided further that if it is proposed to continue the person who is not a cadre officer beyond a period of three months, the State Government shall obtain the prior approval of the Central Government for such continuance; (b) if the vacancy is not likely to last for more than three months: Provided that if the vacancy is likely to exceed a period of three months, the State Government shall obtain the prior approval of the Central Government for continuing the person who is not a cadre officer beyond the period of three months. 9(2) A cadre post shall not be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer except in accordance with the following principles, namely: (a) if there is a Select List in force, the appointment or appointments shall be made in the order of the names of the officers in the Select List; (b) if it is proposed to depart from the order of names appearing in the Select List, the State Government shall forthwith make a proposal to that effect to Central Government together with the reasons therefor and the appointment shall be made only with the prior approval of the Central Government; (c) if a Select List is not in force and it is proposed to appoint a non-Select List officer, the State Government shall forthwith make a proposal to that effect to the Central Government together with the reasons therefor and the appointment shall be made only with the prior approval of the Central Government; 9(3) Where a cadre post is likely to be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer for a period exceeding six months, the Central Government shall report the full facts to the Union Public Service Commission with the reasons for holding that no suitable officer is available for filling the post and may in the light of the advice given by the Union Public Service Commission give suitable direction to the State Government concerned; 9(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, in relation to the State of Nagaland and the Union Territories, a cadre post may be filled by a person who is a member of the Indian Frontier Administrative Service and was recruited to the Service prior to the 1st of January, 1968. 10. Report to the Central Government of vacant cadre posts- Cadre posts shall not be kept vacant or held in abeyance for periods exceeding six months without the approval of the Central Government. 10. Report to the Central Government of vacant cadre posts- Cadre posts shall not be kept vacant or held in abeyance for periods exceeding six months without the approval of the Central Government. For this purpose, the State Government shall make a report to the Central Government in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) the reasons for the proposal; (b) the period for which the State Government proposes to keep the post vacant or hold it in abeyance; (c) the provision, if any, made for the existing incumbent of the post; and (d) whether it is proposed to make any arrangements for the performance of the duties of the post to be kept vacant or held in abeyance, and if so, the particulars of such arrangements. 11. Holding of more than one post by a cadre officer- (i) The State Government concerned in respect of the post borne on the State Cadre or the Joint Cadre, as the case may be, may, for the purpose of facilitating leave arrangements for a period not exceeding six months, direct that any two cadre posts or a cadre post and an equivalent post may be held simultaneously by one single cadre officer. (ii) Where the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, it may, with the prior approval of the Central Government, order that the posts directed by it be held simultaneously by one single cadre officer under sub-rule (i), may continue to be so held for a period beyond six months but, in any case, not beyond twelve months from the date with effect from which the posts were first directed to be so held under sub-rule(i). 11A. Authority to exercise certain powers in respect of members of the Service serving in connection with the affairs of the States constituting a Joint Cadre:- The powers of the State Government under the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 4, under clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of rule 6 and under Rules 7, 10 and 11, in relation to the members of the Service serving in connection with the affairs of any of the Constituent States shall be exercised by the Government of that State. 11B. 11B. Authority to exercise certain powers in respect of members of the Service serving in connection with the affairs of the State constituting a Joint Cadre:- The powers of the State Government under rule 9, in relation to the members of the Service serving in connection with the affairs of any of the Constituent State shall be exercised by the Government of that State. 12. Interpretation- If any question arises as to the interpretation of these Rules, the Central Government shall decide the same." Rule 2 (a) defines Cadre Officer, "means a member of IAS". Rule 2 (b) defines cadre post as any post specified under item I of each cadre in the Schedule to the IAS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955. Rule 3 (I) provides for constitution for a State or Group of States an IAS cadre. Rule 3 (2) clarifies the situation by providing that Cadre so constituted for a State or group of States would be referred to as a "State Cadre" or as the case may be, a "Joint Cadre". Cadre strength is fixed under Rule 4 and it has specifically been provided sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 that the strength and composition of each of the cadre constituted under Rule 3 shall be determined by Regulations made by Central Government in consultation with State Governments. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 authorises Central Government to re-examine the strength and composition of each such cadre in consultation with State Government, ordinarily at the interval of every five year. To this sub-rule, proviso has been added providing for that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to affect the power of Central Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre at any other time. There is a further proviso that provides for that the State Government may add for a period not exceeding two year and with the approval of Central Government for further period of three years to State or Joint Cadre one or more posts carrying duties or responsibilities of like nature to cadre post. Postings are done by the State Government under Rule 7. Rule 8 obligates that every cadre post shall be filled by a cadre officer and a cadre officer shall not hold an ex-cadre post in excess of the numbers specified in 1955 Regulations unless approval of Central Government is obtained. Postings are done by the State Government under Rule 7. Rule 8 obligates that every cadre post shall be filled by a cadre officer and a cadre officer shall not hold an ex-cadre post in excess of the numbers specified in 1955 Regulations unless approval of Central Government is obtained. Similarly, Rule 9 provides for that a non-cadre officer would not be posted on a cadre post except in certain contingency and for not more than three months and for period beyond three months, prior approval of Central Government is necessary. Rule 11 deals with holding of more than one post by Cadre officer. Rule 12 authorises Central Government to take a call on the issues of interpretation of Rules. The IAS (FCS) Regulations, 1955 fix the cadre strength to be revised at the interval of five years and under second provision to Rule 4 (2) State Government can add a post in the cadre for two years and with the approval of Central Government for three years. The last revision, admittedly, had been done in the year 2014, whereupon the IAS (FCS) 7th Amendment Regulations 2014 has been notified on 31.12.2014. Under the scheme of things provided for as against the number of posts so determined under IAS (FCS) 7th Amendment Regulation 2014 same necessarily has to be filled from amongst the members of IAS cadre only and no one else outside the cadre can be permitted to occupy the said post. A Civil Servant, as per Fundamental Rule, FR 56 (a), has to retire from service on the completion of 60th years of age. The age of superannuation marks the end point of Civil Servant's service. As per FR 56 (d) no government servant shall be granted extension in service beyond the age of retirement of sixty years. The date of superannuation of government servant is known in advance and it is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that Government Servant under their control so retire. There are certain exceptions, wherein in public interest extension of service can be given and re-employment can be made. The date of superannuation of government servant is known in advance and it is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that Government Servant under their control so retire. There are certain exceptions, wherein in public interest extension of service can be given and re-employment can be made. Relevant extract of the same is as follows; "Age of Retirement / Extension As per Fundamental Rule, FR 56 (a), every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years [a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of the month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years]. 2. On attaining the age indicated in the above rule, retirement is automatic and in the absence of specific orders to the contrary by the competent authority a government servant must retire on the due date. The date of superannuation of a government servant is known in advance and there be no question of failure to make arrangements for his release sufficiently in advance. It is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that the government servants under their control so retire. 3. There are certain exceptions which are indicated in the Table below:- Sl. No. Category of Government Servants Age of Superannuation Reference 1 Specialists in the Teaching, Non-Teaching and Public Health sub-Cadres of Central Health Service 62 years FR 56 (bb) 2 Specialists in the Teaching sub-cadres of the Central Health Service who are engaged only in Teaching activities and not occupying administrative positions. Note: As per Second Proviso to FR 56(bb) Teaching sub-cadre of Central Health Service who are occupying administrative positions shall have the option of seeking appointment to the teaching positions 65 years First Proviso to FR 56 (bb) II. Extension:-As per FR 56(d), no Government Servant shall be granted extension in service beyond the age of retirement of sixty years. Extension, however, may be given in public interest to certain categories of Government servants which are indicated in the Table below:- Sl. No. Category of Government Servants Age of Superannuation Reference 1 Government servant dealing with budget work or working as a full-time Member of a Committee which is to be wound up within a short period of time. Extension, however, may be given in public interest to certain categories of Government servants which are indicated in the Table below:- Sl. No. Category of Government Servants Age of Superannuation Reference 1 Government servant dealing with budget work or working as a full-time Member of a Committee which is to be wound up within a short period of time. Period not exceeding three months First Proviso to FR 56(d) 2 A Specialist in medical or scientific fields Up-to Sixty Two years of age Second Proviso to FR 56(d) 3 Eminent Scientist of International Stature Up-to Sixty Four years of age Third Proviso to FR 56(d) 4 Cabinet Secretary in the Central Government For such period or periods as may be deemed proper subject to the condition that the total term as such Cabinet Secretary does not exceed four years Fourth Proviso to FR 56(d) 5 Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Director, Intelligence Bureau, Secretary, Research and Analysis Wing and Director, Central Bureau of Investigation For such periods as may be deemed proper on case to case basis, subject to the condition that the total term of the incumbents does not exceed two years Fifth Proviso to FR 56(d) 6 Home Secretary and Defence Secretary. For a further period not exceeding three months beyond the period of two years in 4 above. Sixth Proviso to FR 56(d) 7 Secretary, Department of Space and the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy For such period or periods as may be deemed proper subject to a maximum age of 66 years Seventh Proviso to FR 56(d) Provided also that the Appropriate Authority shall have the right to terminate the extension of service before the expiry of such extension by giving a notice in writing of not less than three months in the case of a permanent Government servant, or, of one month in the case of a temporary Government servant, or pay and allowances in lieu of such notice." 13. Provisions to the similar effect are available under Rule 56 (a) of U.P. Fundamental Rules contained in Financial Handbook Volume II Part 2 to 4, wherein also age of superannuation has been provided for, mention has been made that every government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty (60) years. He may be retained in service, after the date of retirement on superannuation, with the sanction of Government on public grounds but must not be retained in service after the age of sixty two (62) years except in very special circumstances. 14. Chapter 21 of Civil Services Regulations deals with re-employment of pensioners and Regulation 520 in particular starts with prohibitory note by providing that an officer who is in receipt of a superannuating pension or retiring pension shall not be re-employed or continue to be employed in service paid from general revenues or from a local fund, except on public grounds. Regulation 520 proceeds to make a mention that sanction to re-employment or extension of the term of employment may be given as follows; (i) By the Government of India in the Administrative Department concerned, when the pensioner served before retirement in a Gazetted appointment directly under the Government of India or belonged to an Imperial Service or Imperial Branch of any Service, or was an officer who, before retirement, held a post usually filled by officers of an Imperial Service or Branch; (ii) In other cases, by the State Government under whose administration the pensioner is re-employed; (iii) By any authority subordinate to a State Government to whom the State Government may delegate its powers under this article in respect of pensioners re-employed in establishments under the control of such authority. 15. Re-employment of superannuated government servant drawing pension is permissible but re-employment of government servant beyond superannuation is allowed in exceptional cases to meet out the shortage of experienced and competent persons where replacement from present cadres is not available and not to bestow favour to selected few. Re-employment has to be resorted only in really exceptional circumstances and that to with the overriding consideration for grant of re-employment that it is in public interest. 16. There is a scheme of re-employment of government servant after retirement and the said scheme in question clearly proceeds to make a mention that a government employee shall cease to be employee after his term of employment comes to an end and a government employee may be re-employed only on specified orders written by the government and government would not appoint any person for his personal benefit but must be re-employed only in exceptional and special circumstances subject to procedure laid down in the circular. The instructions in reference of grant of extension of service/re-employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation has been issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel & Training from time to time over the years and therein criteria for extension/re-employment has clearly been provided for in Circular dated 13.4.1988 and 9.12.2002. Before us nothing has been brought on record that would show and substantiate that State Government has also framed policy for re-employment of Civil Servants, who have attained age of superannuation, on the same pattern as the Central Government has done. 17. In view of the above, this much is clear that re-employment of civil servant should not be taken as a matter of course rather objective exercise should be undertaken in the said direction that would sub-serve the public purpose and said objective can be said to be achieved from the public purpose perspective when superannuated incumbent has a proven track record i.e. he is an outstanding officer with head and shoulder above the rest and other incumbents available are not ripe enough for the job. Special reasons should flow in the file before proceeding to offer re-employment. As to whether there existed public ground for issue an order of re-employment can always be subject matter of judicial review to find out as to whether the State Government in the facts of the case has exercised its authority reasonably/rationally keeping in view the paramount consideration of public good and not merely at its whims and fancies. State Government is the best judge to see and find out the way and manner good governance is to be delivered within the constitutional and statutory framework and in the said direction State Government has got full authority to create post and make appointment on the same, in accordance with law, by adopting free, fair and transparent manner. Constitution of India concedes the power to regulate matters relating to services under the Union of India and under various States specified in first schedule to the Constitution to be exclusive function of Union and States under Entry 70, List I and Entry 41, List II of Seventh Schedule read with Article 309. Constitution of India concedes the power to regulate matters relating to services under the Union of India and under various States specified in first schedule to the Constitution to be exclusive function of Union and States under Entry 70, List I and Entry 41, List II of Seventh Schedule read with Article 309. It is the exclusive power of the Union/State to deal with services either in exercise of their legislative functions, rule making power, and in the absence of law or rules, in exercise of their executive powers under Article 73 and 162 of Constitution. Union and the States are free to constitute service, with as many cadres as required; to create post without constituting service or to create post out-side the cadres of constituted service i.e. ex-cadre post. Creation of post, including ex-cadre post, is purely administrative function and well within the domain of the State Government, as per the exigencies of requirement. Clause (2) of Article 310 of Constitution also additionally empowers the Governor to enter into contract with specially qualified persons providing for payment of compensation where no compensation is payable under the doctrine of service at pleasure of the State. 18. In U.P. Civil Secretariat there are 94 departments, as per the list so supplied, that is required to be headed by Secretary. According to IAS Cadre Strength Fixation Regulation 2014, notified on 30.11.2014, the total number of Senior Duty Posts under the State Government has been fixed to 337 and, thereafter, posts to be filled by promotion and by direct recruitment namely 188 and 433 respectively, has been determined by finally describing authorised strength of U.P. State Cadre to be 621. Number of posts of various categories have been allocated to IAS cadre ranging from Chief Secretary to Additional Resident Commissioner. Every department necessarily has to be headed by Secretary (which term includes a Special Secretary or Joint Secretary, if any, in independent charge) who has to be the administrative head thereof and shall be responsible for the proper transaction of business and careful observation of Rules, as per Rule 10 of U.P. Rules of Business, 1975 framed by Governor of U.P. in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (2) and (3) of Article 166. Thereafter under the same provision, another statutory Rules known as Business of U.P. (Allocation) Rules 1975 has been framed wherein Clause 4 empowers State Government to give the charge of more than one department to the same Secretary. 19. It is true that there are various post of Principal Secretary created under different Service Rules for different department of State such as post of Principal Secretary, Judicial-cum-Legal Remembrancer for Law Department as per Clause 3.14 of Chapter III of L.R. Manual; Principal Secretary, Parliamentary Affairs, governed by statutory rules for the Department of Parliamentary Affairs; Principal Secretary, Vidhan Sabha as per Rule 6 of U.P. Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Service Rules 1974; Principal Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, governed by statutory rules providing for the post of Secretary Vidhan Sabha. All these posts referred to above are job specific/post specific. 20. Services of cadre officers are utilised in different posts looking to the exigencies of administration and employing the best available talent suitable for the post. State is the best judge to determine as to where an incumbent should be posted and where his services should be best utilized. In the said direction charge of more than one Department can be given to the same Secretary. The State has to utilize the resources that are already at its command before it proceeds to create additional post by means of administrative order to meet the shortage of experienced and competent persons where replacement for the present cadres are not available. If such principle is not followed then in each case of re-employment the Department that should be in normal course of business manned by Cadre Officer would otherwise be manned by a Non Cadre Officer. Under IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, Cadre and Ex-cadre posts under the Rules has to be mandatorily filled by Cadre Officer, as Rule 8(1) of 1954 Rules stipulate that every cadre post shall be filled by Cadre Officer. Rule 8(2) provides that a cadre officer shall not hold an ex-cadre post in excess of number specified for the concerned State under Items 5 of the Schedule to the IAS (FCS) Regulation, 1955. Rule 8(2) provides that a cadre officer shall not hold an ex-cadre post in excess of number specified for the concerned State under Items 5 of the Schedule to the IAS (FCS) Regulation, 1955. Rule 8(3) proceeds to make mention that State Government may with the prior approval of Central Government, appoint a cadre officer to hold an ex-cadre post in excess of the number specified for the concern State in Item 5 of Schedule to IAS (FCS) Regulation 1955 and so long as the approval of Central Government remains in force, the said ex-cadre post shall be deemed to be in addition to the number specified in Item 5 of the Schedule. 'Cadre post' has been defined as any post specified under item I of each cadre in Schedule to the IAS (FCS) Regulation, 1955 and all such post necessarily has to be filled by Cadre Officer. 21. State has been fully conscious of this fact that once in consonance with the provisions of Fundamental Rules, FR 56(a), respondent no.4 would attain the age of superannuation and would not at all be entitled to continue on 'Cadre post', proceeded to create an ex-cadre post for his re-appointment. Re-appointment, as already discussed above, is an exceptional device for diluting the provisions of FR 56(d) that clearly states that no Government Servant shall be granted extension, however the same has been hedged with conditions that it should be in public interest. Power is always coupled with duty. The House of Lords in Julius Vs. Lord Bishop of Oxford, 1880 (5) AC 214 explained the said principle as follows; "There may be something in the nature of thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so" 22. Apex Court reiterated the same principle in the case of Andhra Pradesh SRTC Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1998 (7) SCC 353 , as follows; “The power…....cannot be arbitrarily or indiscriminatorily exercised…......... The power is coupled with a duty…..... Apex Court reiterated the same principle in the case of Andhra Pradesh SRTC Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1998 (7) SCC 353 , as follows; “The power…....cannot be arbitrarily or indiscriminatorily exercised…......... The power is coupled with a duty…..... The authority must genuinely address itself to the matter before it…....... It must act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant considerations and must not be shirked by irrelevant consideration, must not shriek to promote alien to the letter and spirit of the legislation that gives it power to act and must not act arbitrarily or capriciously.” 23. In Consumer Action Group & Anr. Vs. State of T.N. & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 425 , the Apex Court held that whenever any Statute confers any power on any authority, "howsoever wide the discretion may be, the same has to be exercised reasonably within the sphere that Statute confers and such exercise of power must stand the test of judicial scrutiny. The judicial scrutiny is one of the basic features of our Constitution. The reason recorded to it discloses the justiciability of exercise of such power". 24. In Delhi Administration Vs. Manohar Lal, (2002) 7 SCC 222 , the Apex Court observed as under; "We are also of the view that even the appropriate Government may not, as a matter of routine course, indulge in exercise of such powers at its sweet will, pleasure and whim or fancy......... powers conferred upon the appropriate Government ............ have to be exercised in accordance with rules and established principles - reasonably and rationally, keeping in view the reasons germane and relevant for the purpose of law ............ Otherwise, the legislative will become a mere dead-letter at the whim of the executive." 25. State is obligated to act within the sphere that Statute confers and such exercise of power will have to stand the test of judicial scrutiny by substantiating that action taken is in good faith and in public interest and is not a pretense. 26. Here, in the present case, what we find from the record is that respondent no. State is obligated to act within the sphere that Statute confers and such exercise of power will have to stand the test of judicial scrutiny by substantiating that action taken is in good faith and in public interest and is not a pretense. 26. Here, in the present case, what we find from the record is that respondent no. 4 Shree Prakash Singh had been functioning as Secretary, Urban Planning & Development and after his retirement from the said post, an ex-cadre post has been created and Chief Secretary of U.P. has proceeded to accept this fact that he has been permitted to perform and discharge duties as Officer on Special Duty-Ex-Officio Secretary, Urban Planning and Development Department, Nagariya Rojgar Evam Garibi Unmulan Karyakram Vibhag, U.P. Government and Secretary, Alpsankhyak Kalyan Evam Muslim Waqf Department, U.P. Government. Such orders creating post and offering re-appointment by the State Government has not at all been prayed for to be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari, and on the parameters of the writ of quo-warranto, once there exists authority of re-appointment after attaining age of superannuation and of creating post, then, in the facts of case, there is no occasion, on the material available, to issue writ in the nature of quo-warranto. Before parting, we would make mention that in the case of Jagdish Narain Shukla vs. State of U.P., Misc. Bench No.10245 of 2015, the Lucknow Bench of this Court is already examining as to whether there exists any public ground for re-employment of retired IAS. Before us there has been no substantive material on the said score as details of IAS officers, who have been re-employed after their superannuation alongwith their respective post, is not available, details of available staff who otherwise in normal course of business would have manned such function as is being manned by retired beurocrats is also not available, in view of this, as far as continuance of respondent no.4 is concerned, same would also abide by the said judgment. 27. Consequently, with the aforementioned observations, present writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order stands discharged.