Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2696 (HP)

BHUPINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2016-12-20

PREM KUMAR, V.K.SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. All these inter-connected matters involving a common issue, requiring common appreciation of facts and law, are taken up for discussion and decision. 2. Bereft of details, facts emerging out of the pleadings set up on behalf of the parties are as follows. However, for the sake of convenience, documents filed in O.A. No.3795 of 2016, Bhupinder Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, will be referred to. 3. The Section 45 of the Act is as under: 45. Power to make regulations: (1) A Corporation may, with the previous sanction of [the State Government and by notification in the Official gazette], make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation. 3. The Section 45 of the Act is as under: 45. Power to make regulations: (1) A Corporation may, with the previous sanction of [the State Government and by notification in the Official gazette], make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the manner in which, and the purposes for which, persons may be associated with the [Board] under section 10;TC "(a) the manner in which, and the purposes for which, persons may be associated with the [Board] under section 10;" (b) the time and place of meetings of the [Board] and the procedure to be followed in regard to transaction of business at such meetings; TC "b) the time and place of meetings of the [Board] and the procedure to be followed in regard to transaction of business at such meetings;" (c) the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and 4[other employees of the Corporation other than the Managing Director, the Chief Accounts Officer and the Financial Advisor or, as the case may be, the Chief Accounts Officer-cum-Financial Advisor]; TC "(c) the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and [other employees of the Corporation other than the Managing Director, the Chief Accounts Officer and the Financial Advisor or, as the case may be, the Chief Accounts Officer-cum-Financial Advisor];" [(d) the issue of passes to the employees of the Corporation and other persons under section 1 9;TC "3[(d) the issue of passes to the employees of the Corporation and other persons under section 19;]" (e) the grant of refund in respect of unused tickets and concessional passes under section 19.]TC "(e) the grant of refund in respect of unused tickets and concessional passes under section 19.]" 4. Secondly, the Rules also contravene the Himachal Road Transport corporation (Class-I, II, III and IV) Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain conditions of service Regulations), 1996, (the Regulations), Annexure A-5, vis-a-vis the post of conductors. Lastly, during the course of 'Passenger Service Delivery Skill Development Training', they, in fact, had performed duty as conductors. 5. Secondly, the Rules also contravene the Himachal Road Transport corporation (Class-I, II, III and IV) Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain conditions of service Regulations), 1996, (the Regulations), Annexure A-5, vis-a-vis the post of conductors. Lastly, during the course of 'Passenger Service Delivery Skill Development Training', they, in fact, had performed duty as conductors. 5. In reply filed by respondent No.2-Corporation, which has also been adopted on behalf of respondent No. 1-State, various preliminary submissions/objections have been raised with regard to maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, the original applications being in the nature of public interest litigation, limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction. 6. On merits, it is averred that after issuance of notification dated 30th August 2014, Annexure A-6, in terms and in compliance of Section 45 of the Act, sanction of the State Government was sought, vide letter dated 17th September, 2015, Annexure R-2,-and the same was accorded/conveyed, vide letter dated 21.01.2016, Annexure R-3. It is further averred that the contention raised on behalf of the applicants that during the course of Passenger Service Delivery Skill Development Training they had performed duty as conductors, is absolutely fallacious for the reason that it was simply a training and note a job training and they cannot "claim any right, interest, equity or title during the training a after the training", as has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment dated 13.10.2015, Annexure A-3, in CWP No. 2449 of 2015, Parveen Kumar v. State of H.P. and others, and as such Recruitment and Promotion Regulations Annexure A-5, vis-a-vis the post of conductors do not apply to TMPAs, who are governed under the Rules, issued vide notification dated 30th August, 2014, Annexure A-6. Even otherwise, the very designation TMPAs, which are otherwise temporary posts, clearly shows that TMPAs can be put on a variety of duties as per requirement of the respondent Corporation. 7. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel/Counsel and Additional Advocate General for the parties and perused the record. Written submissions/synopsis filed by the applicants and respondent No. 2 in O.A. Nos. 2950 and 3795 of 2016 have also been perused. 8. A Large number of precedents have been cited on behalf of the parties at the bar. 9. The applicants have relied upon on the following case law:- 1. JT 2015 (11) SC 421 2. Written submissions/synopsis filed by the applicants and respondent No. 2 in O.A. Nos. 2950 and 3795 of 2016 have also been perused. 8. A Large number of precedents have been cited on behalf of the parties at the bar. 9. The applicants have relied upon on the following case law:- 1. JT 2015 (11) SC 421 2. CWP No. 9492 of 2014, Shashi Bhushan v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 3. (2011) 6 SCC 508 4. (2010) 11 SCC 374 5. (2009) 15 SCC 705 6. (2008) 4 SCC 619 7. (2007) 8 SCC 100 8. (2006) 9 SCC 161 9. 2006 (8) SLR 79 10. (1997) 9 SCC 527 11. 1997 (2) SLR 716 12. A.I.R. 1962 SC 554 The respondents have relied upon the following authorities:- 1. (2016) 8 SCC 293 2. (2016) 1 SCC 454 3. CWP No. 692 of 2016, Anil Verma & ors v. State of HP & ors and the connected matters. 4. Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 1915 5. (2015) 2 SCC 796 6. (2014) 16 SCC 187 7. (2014) 15 SCC 308 8. FAO (HMA) No. 229 of 2014 9. (2013) 4 SCC 465 10. Civil Appeal No.9092 of 2012, Ashok Kumar & anr v. State of Bihar & ors. 11. CWP(T) No.8646 of 2008, Mahesh Gupta and another v. State of H.P. and others. 12. (2006) 4 SCC 13. (2003) 2 SCC 632 14. (1998) 7 SCC 273 15. (1997) 1 SCC 253 16. (1995) 3 SCC 486 17. A.I.R. 1986 SC 1043 18. A.I.R. 1980 SC 1255 19. A.I.R. 1973 SC 2641 10. Admittedly, the core issue raised on behalf of the applicants that the impugned notification dated 30th August, 2014 and the Rules framed thereunder, Annexure A-6, lack previous sanction of the State Government as required under Section 45 of the Act was also before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.9492 of 2014, Shashi Bhushan v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 02.9.2015. Paras 22 to 30 of the judgment being relevant, are reproduced herein-below:- "22. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would however vehemently argue that the advertisement has no relevance in view of the Rules now formulated by it under Section 45 of the Act. 23. Paras 22 to 30 of the judgment being relevant, are reproduced herein-below:- "22. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would however vehemently argue that the advertisement has no relevance in view of the Rules now formulated by it under Section 45 of the Act. 23. Before adverting to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, it is necessary to examine certain other provisions of the Act, which have important bearing on the subject matter of the instant case. Section 2(b) defines "Corporation" to mean the Road Transport Corporation established under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 relates to establishment of Road Transport Corporation in States. Under Section 4, every Corporation shall be a body corporate, by the name notified under Section 3, having perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by the said name sue and be sued. Section 5 relates to the management of the Corporation and to its Board of Directors and under Sub-section (1), the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of a Corporation shall vest in a Board of Directors which, with the assistance of its committees and Managing Director, may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the Corporation. Section 45 relates to the power to make regulations and reads as under- "45. Power to make regulations: (1) A Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation. Section 45 relates to the power to make regulations and reads as under- "45. Power to make regulations: (1) A Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the manner in which, and the purposes for which, persons may be associated with the [Board] under section 10; (b) the time and place of meetings of the [Board] and the procedure to be followed in regard to transaction of business at such meetings; (c) the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and [other employees of the Corporation other than the Managing Director, the Chief Accounts Officer and the Financial Adviser or, as the case may be, the Chief Accounts Officer-cum-Financial Adviser]; [(d) the issue of passes to the employees of the Corporation and other persons under section 19; (e) the grant of refund in respect of unused tickets and concessional passes under section 19.]" 24. Undoubtedly, Section 45 of the Act empowers the Corporation to make regulations, but that is subject to the previous sanction of the State Government. This necessarily requires three steps;- (i) The Corporation "frames or "proposes" regulations by its resolution. These have to be sent to the State Government for according sanction. (ii) The State Government then accords its sanction. In this power of the Government it is implicit that it may reject or suggest amendment or modification in the proposed regulations and eventually accord its sanction. (iii) After the State Government accords its sanction, the Corporation "makes" regulations. This third step is necessary because the expression "previous sanction of the State Government" necessarily denotes that the Corporation in order to "make" the regulation has to do something "after" the sanction of the State Government. To put it differently the "previous sanction" is a step earlier than the "making of the regulations." (refer M.P.S.R.T.C. Bairagarh Bhopal v. Ramchandra and others, AIR 1977 M.P. 243 ) (FB). Indisputably, none of the aforesaid processes has been followed by respondent No. 2 before issuing notification dated 30.8.2014. 25. To put it differently the "previous sanction" is a step earlier than the "making of the regulations." (refer M.P.S.R.T.C. Bairagarh Bhopal v. Ramchandra and others, AIR 1977 M.P. 243 ) (FB). Indisputably, none of the aforesaid processes has been followed by respondent No. 2 before issuing notification dated 30.8.2014. 25. The power conferred on the Corporation to make regulations is a power which, under Section 5(1), vests in and is exercised by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Whereas, the power to make regulations relating to the conditions of service of officers and other employees of the corporation, under Section 45(2)(c) is vested in the Board of Directors of the Corporation and such a power to make regulations (commonly termed as Rules by the Corporation) can only be exercised with the previous sanction of the State Government. 26. Once statute is clear and unambiguous and clearly uses the words "previous sanction", there can be no matter of doubt that before resorting to any exercise which would fall within the purview of Section 45 of the Act, the concurrence of the State Government is required whereas the records reveal that no such sanction has been obtained. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the so called Rules/regulations have not legally come into force. 27. It is more than settled that public offices, both big and small, are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse and in case large scale fraud is committed so as to shock the conscious of the Court, then the law is not that powerless and would step into quash the entire selection. This was so observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Yadav and another v. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 165 as under:- "16. Having regard to all the above, the irresistible conclusion is "fraud has reached its crescendo". Deeds as foul as these are inconceivable much less could be perpetrated. We are reminded of the words of Shakespeare: "Thus much of this, will make Black, white; foul, fair; wrong, right; Base, noble; Ha, you gods! why this?" (Timon of Athens, Act IV, Sc. 3) 17. It may not be too much to draw an inference that all these were motivated by extraneous considerations. Otherwise, how does one account for selection without, interview, fake and ghost interviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery? why this?" (Timon of Athens, Act IV, Sc. 3) 17. It may not be too much to draw an inference that all these were motivated by extraneous considerations. Otherwise, how does one account for selection without, interview, fake and ghost interviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery? Each of this would attract the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code. They have been done with impunity. 18. The story does not end here. From out of the "selection list" secret Communications have been sent to the candidates. Selections were made without medical test or verification of antecedents. 19. It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken the path of least Resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless. 20. In the above circumstances, what are we to do? The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept this argument. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravels everything". To put it in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly we hereby set aside the selection of Taxation Inspectors. 24. All these efforts by us are aimed at cleansing the public administration. No doubt, it may be stupendous task but we do hope this small step will make great strides in the days to come. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed." 28. In M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav and others (2007) 8 SCC 264 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles to be followed in the matter of public appointments:- "24. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed." 28. In M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav and others (2007) 8 SCC 264 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles to be followed in the matter of public appointments:- "24. It is clear that in the matter of public appointments, the following principles are to be followed: (6) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the Rules/Government Circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India (7) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. (8) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularization. (9) Those who come by back door should go through that door. (10) No regularization is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory Rules. (9) The Court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy. (10) If the mischief played so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. (11) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside." 29. Respondent No. 2 being creation of statute is admittedly a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and cannot therefore, act like a private individual, who can act in a manner whatsoever he likes, unless it is interdicted or prohibited by law. Rather its power as an employer are more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subject to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It is trite that the State and its instrumentalities have to act strictly within the four corners of law and all its activities are governed by rules, regulations and instructions. Rather its power as an employer are more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subject to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It is trite that the State and its instrumentalities have to act strictly within the four corners of law and all its activities are governed by rules, regulations and instructions. It is more then settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner then the same must be done in that manner or not at all. 30. Now once it is established that there was no credible mechanism in place whether, by way of guidelines, rules, regulations or instructions, or even a decision by any authority, much less a competent authority on the basis of which the advertisement for filling up the posts of TMPAs has been issued and thereafter the selection conducted, the entire process of selection as undertaken by respondent No. 2 stands vitiated and is therefore, declared as null and void, besides being arbitrary and is accordingly set aside. In such circumstances, the other contentions as raised in this petition are rendered academic and therefore, need not be adverted to. 11. While placing reliance upon MRF Limited v. Manohar Parrikar and others, (2010) 11 SCC 374 and Lalraman & Others v. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr., (2015) 11 SC 423 (paras 100-107), the applicants contend that 'previous sanction' of the State Government within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act read with Article 166 of the Constitution and Rule 14 of the Rules of Business of the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Rules of Business) read with Clause 15 of the Schedule thereto would mean that the matter is considered and decided by the Council of Ministers. Paras 107 and 108 of the judgment in re: MRF Limited v. Manohar Parrikar and others and the connected matters are reproduced herein-below for ready reference:- "107. Thus, from the foregoing, it is clear that a decision to be the decision of the Government must satisfy the requirements of the Business Rules framed by the State Government under the provisions of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India. Thus, from the foregoing, it is clear that a decision to be the decision of the Government must satisfy the requirements of the Business Rules framed by the State Government under the provisions of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India. In the case on hand, as has been noticed by us and the High Court, the decisions leading to the notifications do not comply with the requirements of the Business Rules framed by the Government of Goa under the provisions of Article 166(3) of the Constitution and the notifications are the result of the decision taker by the Power Minister at his level. The decision of the individual Minister cannot be treated as the decision of the State Government and the notifications issue/as a result of the decision of the individual Minister which are in violation of tin Business Rules are void ab initio and all actions consequent thereto are null and void. 108. The appellants contended before this Court that another Division Bench of the High Court in its earlier judgment of 21-1-1999 had held that the Notification dated 1-8-1996 was clarificatory and that it did not create any extra financial liability on the State Government requiring approval of the Cabinet in compliance with the Business Rules before it was brought into force. In our opinion the said notification cannot be treated as mere clarificatory. It is a notification issued purportedly in term of a government decision. It was a decision finalised at the level of the Minister of Power alone and was taken in violation of the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India. The decision cannot be called a government decision as understood under Article 154 of the Constitution, though it may satisfy the requirements of authentication. Nevertheless, mere authenticate as required under Article 166(2) of the Constitution did not make it a government decision in law nor would it validate a decision which is void ab initio. The validity of the notification will have to be tested with reference to the constitutional provisions and the Business Rules and not by their form or substance. Therefore, this contention of the appellants is liable to be rejected." 12. Article 166 of the Constitution lays down as under:- "166. The validity of the notification will have to be tested with reference to the constitutional provisions and the Business Rules and not by their form or substance. Therefore, this contention of the appellants is liable to be rejected." 12. Article 166 of the Constitution lays down as under:- "166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State: (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. (2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. (3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion." 13. Rule 14 of the Rules of Business and Clause 15 of the Schedule thereto are asunder:- Rule 14: "14. Subject to the orders of the Chief Minister under Rule 16, all cases referred to in the Schedule shall be brought before the Council in accordance with the provisions of these Rules; Cases shall also be brought before the Council by a special direction of the Chief Minister, or the Governor under Article 167(c): Provided that no case in regard to which the Finance Department is required to be consulted under these Rules, shall, save in an emergency or exceptional circumstances and under the specific directions of the Chief Minister, be discussed by the Council unless the Finance Department has had an opportunity for considering it." Clause 15 "15 Proposals for the creation, up gradation and abolition of all posts: Provided that the Administrative Department shall be competent to abolish the posts in consultation with the Finance Department. The Finance Department shall facilitate maintenance of records of abolition of posts in various Departments and working out likely financial impact for budgetary purposes." 14. The Finance Department shall facilitate maintenance of records of abolition of posts in various Departments and working out likely financial impact for budgetary purposes." 14. However, according to the applicants, even after the impugned notification dated 30th August, 2014 and the Rules framed thereunder, Annexure A-6, were held to be bad by the Hon'ble High Court, vide judgment in CWP No.9492 of 2014, Shashi Bhushan v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, supra, the same were not at all placed before the Council of Ministers for consideration and decision and, as such, the same lack 'previous sanction' of the State Government, thus, having no legal validity. 15. Per contra, according to the respondents, the matter is not covered under Clause 15 of the Schedule to the Rules of Business as it was not a 'proposal for creation of posts' and instead 'framing of new Rules' qua TMPAs and as such covered by Clause 2(c) of the Schedule to the Rules of Business read with the amendment carried out therein and procedure prescribed, vide communication dated 7th July, 2008, particularly para 3(5) thereof (copy filed, which is taken on record), which respectively are as under:- Clause 2(c) of the Schedule to the Rules of Business. 2. Proposals for the making or proposals involving amendment, other than routine amendment of rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of- (c) Persons appointed to the Public Service and posts (Excepting Class-Ill and IV posts) in connection with the State Affairs. Provided that minor amendments in the recruitment and the condition of service rules of Class-1 and Class II posts like change of Pay Scales, nomenclature of posts, number of posts and age limits for direct recruitment pursuant to the notifications/instructions of the Department of Personnel shall be made by the concerned Administrative Department with the approval of the Minister-in-charge: Provided further that the cases of recruitment and condition of service of Class-111 posts involving difference of opinion with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and where there is departure from common rules shall be brought to the Council of Ministers. (Proviso to Article 309)." Amendment in Clause 2(c) of the Schedule to the Rules of Business: "No. PER (AP-C)-A-4(1)/95-Loose Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel (AP-III) ******* From The Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. To 1. All the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh 2. (Proviso to Article 309)." Amendment in Clause 2(c) of the Schedule to the Rules of Business: "No. PER (AP-C)-A-4(1)/95-Loose Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel (AP-III) ******* From The Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. To 1. All the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh 2. All the Divisional Commissioners in Himachal Pradesh 3. All the Heads of Departments in Himachal Pradesh 4. All the Deputy Commissioners in Himachal Pradesh Dated: Shimla-171002, the 7th July, 2008 Subject:-Amendment in the Rules of Business of the Government of H.P. -Instructions regarding framing/amending the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Sir, 1. I am directed to refer to this Department letter No. PER(AP)-C-B(19)-2/98 dated the 22nd April, 1999 on the subject cited and to say that presently in accordance with Rule-14 of the Rules of Business of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, 1971, the Recruitment arid Promotion Rules framed under provisos to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and the Recruitment and Promotion Rules requiring substantive amendments in case of Class-I & II Posts/Services are taken to Cabinet for their approval However, in case of minor amendments like change of nomenclature of post, increase or decrease of number of posts and change of pay scales, as per delegation made by the Cabinet, such amendments are not required to be taken to the Cabinet for approval. Besides, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules in respect of Class-III & IV posts are also not taken to the Cabinet for approval and such Rules whether framing of new Rules or carrying out of amendments in these Rules, are notified by the concerned Administrative Departments after having obtained the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Minister-in-charge concerned respectively. 2. The matter regarding delegation of powers for framing/amendment of Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Class-II posts was under consideration of the Government for quite some-time. 2. The matter regarding delegation of powers for framing/amendment of Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Class-II posts was under consideration of the Government for quite some-time. Now the Government after taking into consideration all aspects, have amended Clause 2(c) of the Schedule under Rule-14 of the Rules of Business in the following manner:- "(c) persons appointed to the Public Service and posts (Excepting Class-II, III IV post(s) in connection with the Affairs of State: Provided that minor amendments in the service rules of Class-I posts like-change of Pay scales, nomenclature of posts, number of posts and age limit for direct recruitment pursuant to the notification/instructions of the Department of Personnel shall be made by the concerned Administrative Department with the approval of the Minister-in-charge. Provided further that the cases of Class-II & III posts involving difference of opinion with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and where there is departure from common rules shall be brought to the Council of Ministers. (Proviso to Article-309)" 1. In view of the aforesaid amendments in the Rules of Business of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the following procedure should now be adopted for framing of Recruitment & Promotion Rules in future:- 1) The formal prescribed procedure for framing of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the present is that the Administrative Departments first of all obtain the clearance of the Department of Personnel and thereafter they seek clearance from the Law & Finance Departments. 2) In case all these Consulting Departments clear the cases of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, the Administrative Department are not required to come to the Rules Committee for their approval as was the practise in the past. As such they go to the H.P. Public Service Commission for obtaining their consent before taking the proposal to the Cabinet for their approval. 3) But, in case, if there is a difference of opinion of the Administrative Department either with any of the Consulting Departments or with the H.P. Public Service Commission, only in that case the Rules are taken to the Rules Committee to sort out the difference of opinion. 4) All Recruitment & Promotion Rules in respect of Class-I posts or amendments thereto should continue to be brought before the Council of Ministers for their approval after following the existing procedure. 4) All Recruitment & Promotion Rules in respect of Class-I posts or amendments thereto should continue to be brought before the Council of Ministers for their approval after following the existing procedure. However, minor amendments in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of Class-I posts like change of Scale, nomenclature of posts, number of posts and age limits for direct recruitment in pursuance of Department of Personnel's notifications/instructions issued, shall be made by the Administrative Departments with the approval of the Minister-in-charge concerned. 5) All Recruitment & Promotion Rules in respect of Class-II & III posts whether framing of new Rules or amendments thereto should not go to the Council of Ministers. The Administrative Departments should notify these Recruitment & Promotion Rules after having obtained the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister through the Minister-in-charge concerned. However, in cases where there is a difference of opinion with the H.P. Public Service Commission and where there is departure from common Rules, only such matters shall be brought before the Council of Ministers after having the approval of the Rules Committee in the matter. (Emphasis supplied) 6) All Recruitment & Promotion Rules in respect of Class-IV posts together with substantial change/amendments thereto shall continue to be notified by the Administrative Department after having the approval of the Minister-in-Charge concerned, as heretofore. 2. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh No. PER (AP-C)-A-4(I)/95-Loose Dated: Shimla-171002, the 7th July, 2008. 1. Copy to all the Section Officers in H.P. Secretariat Shimla-171002, for information and similar necessary action. 2. Guard file 100 copies. Sd/- Deputy Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh." 16. According to the respondents, in view of the above amendment, particularly para 3(5), the impugned notification dated 30th August, 2014 and the Rules framed thereunder, Annexure A-6, qua TMPAs, which is Class-III post, were not required to be placed before the Council of Ministers for consideration and decision. 17. Sd/- Deputy Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh." 16. According to the respondents, in view of the above amendment, particularly para 3(5), the impugned notification dated 30th August, 2014 and the Rules framed thereunder, Annexure A-6, qua TMPAs, which is Class-III post, were not required to be placed before the Council of Ministers for consideration and decision. 17. However, even if the contention raised on behalf of the respondents to the effect that in view of the above amendment in Clause 2(c) of the Schedule under the Rules of Business, the impugned notification dated 30th August, 2014 and the Rules framed thereunder, Annexure A-6, were not required to be placed before the Council of Ministers for consideration and decision, is taken into consideration, still as per para 3(5) of the aforesaid communication dated 7th July, 2008, whereby amendment was carried out in Clause 2(c) of the Schedule under the Rules of Business, the matter required approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. However, it is not in dispute rather categorically admitted at the bar by the learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation that the matter with regard to 'previous sanction' by the State Government, vide letter dated 17th September, 2015, Annexure R-2, was taken only upto the level of the Additional Chief Secretary (Transport) to the Government of Himachal and the Hon'ble Minister-in-Charge and approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister was not obtained as required under para 3(5) of the aforesaid communication dated 7th July, 2008. It being so, the impugned notification dated 30th August, 2014 and the Rules framed thereunder, Annexure A-6, lack 'previous sanction the State Government. 18. Thus the core issue raised in these original applications is no longer res integra and is rather squarely covered under judgment dated 02.9.2015 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No.9492 of 2014, Shashi Bhushan v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, supra, which has attained finality without there being any further challenge. 19. In the above backdrop, we need not go into various other contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 20. The original applications as also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any stand disposed of accordingly. 21. Let this order be placed in O.A. No. 3795 of 2016 and duly authenticated copies in the connected matters.