ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued vide proceedings RoC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021, as it offends and affects G.O.Rt.No. 151/AH-DD&F (AH.1) Department dated 17.06.2021 and it is capricious, malicious, mala-fide and being violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India: Counsel for the Petitioner: P. Lakshaman Rao Counsel for the State: G.V.S. Kishore Kumar Counsel for the 3rd Respondent: None appeared though notice served have addressed arguments 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while discharging his duties as Assistant Director (Animal Husbandry) was deputed to the SVVU Super Specialty Veterinary Hospital, Visakhapatnam which is under the control of Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupati with effect from 25.02.2016 as per the proceedings No. 4756/B1/B1/2015, dated 24.12.2015. And his deputation under Foreign Service was completed by afternoon of 24.02.2021 and the petitioner herein was repatriated to the parent department and the petitioner was relieved from deputation on 24.02.2021 and he was directed to report before the Director, Animal Husbandry Development Department who is arrayed as 2nd respondent herein. 3. On repatriation to his parent department, the petitioner made a representation/ addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent on 24.02.2021 requesting to post him as Assistant Director at State Management Institute of Livestock Entrepreneurship hereafter called as (SMILE) in the place of Dr. M. Chandra Sekhar who has been promoted as Deputy Director Animal Husbandry from the post of Assistant Director and he sought transfer on the ground that son of the petitioner was under treatment for Multiple Sclerosis at KGH Hospital, Visakhapatnam. On receiving such representation from the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-Director, Animal Husbandry has addressed a letter dated 15.06.2021 to the Government. The Government vide Memo No. 1424587/AH.I/A1/2021 dated 10.06.2021 of AH. DD & F Department has sent for proposals for approval to 2nd respondent to post the petitioner as assistant director (SMILE) and issued instructions to the 2nd respondent for examination. 4. In pursuance of the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent i.e. Director, Animal Husbandry, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No. 151, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (AH.I) Department, dated 17.06.2021 posting/appointing the petitioner as Assistant Director (AH), Office of the Additional Director (Animal Husbandry), (SMILE), Visakhapatnam in the existing vacancy on being given promotion to one Dr. 4. In pursuance of the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent i.e. Director, Animal Husbandry, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No. 151, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (AH.I) Department, dated 17.06.2021 posting/appointing the petitioner as Assistant Director (AH), Office of the Additional Director (Animal Husbandry), (SMILE), Visakhapatnam in the existing vacancy on being given promotion to one Dr. M. Chandra Sekhar who has been promoted from the post of Assistant Director as Deputy Director Animal Husbandry. 5. While things stood thus, the 2nd respondent herein has posted the 3rd respondent who is working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam as Assistant Director, SMILE, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings in ROC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021. The 3rd respondent has assumed charge as Assistant Director, SMILE. 6. Assailing the said proceedings issued in RoC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021, the present Writ Petition came to be filed on the ground the impugned proceedings is in defiance to GO Ms No 151 dt.17-06-2021 and that the 2nd respondent has appointed the 3rd respondent in collusion with a mala-fide intention and to deprive the genuine request of the petitioner on medical grounds, the 2nd respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as Assistant Director which is arbitrary in nature and it is also contended that the 2nd respondent is not the competent authority under Andhra Pradesh State Animal Husbandry Service Rules 1996 hereafter called as rules and also contended that as per rules the appointing authority is Government and he relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Kuppusamy and Another vs. State of T.N. and Others, Bindeshwari Ram vs. State of Bihar and Others and also relied on another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others vs. Somasundram Viswanath and Others and also further contended that the mode of appointment order manifestly indicates that the 2nd respondent had did some official favour to the 3rd respondent under the guise of Memo No. 3728/AH.III/1/2005-2, dated 22-09-2005 of AH DD & F (AH.III) Department and the petitioner herein is senior to the 3rd respondent herein and the 3rd respondent herein was appointed one day prior to the GO issued by the 1st respondent. 7. 7. The State has filed its counter affidavit denied all the assertions/averments made in the Writ Petition and it is mainly contended that SMILE is a prestigious institution for providing training to the vets and Para-vets to improve the knowledge in theoretical and practical and also the Additional Director (AH) SMILE proposed to fill up the posts of training centre with qualified Post Graduate vets in Veterinary Science only in training centres like RAHTCs, SAHTCs and SMILE officers having undergone TOT trainings etc. in accordance with the Government Memo No. 3728/AH.III/1/2005-2, dated 22-09-2005 of AH DD & F(AH.III) Department. And it is further asserted that even though specific instructions issued to the petitioner to report before the Director of Animal Husbandry and he has not turned up, the promotion file was processed and orders were issued to the eligible Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at his request and eligibility vide office proceedings RoC No. 2633/BI/2020 dated 16.06.2021 (which is impugned in the present Writ Petition). And it is also further asserted that even on receipt of the orders, the petitioner has failed to submit his joining report before the Director of Animal Husbandry A.P. Vijayawada and later he submitted his joining report before the Director of Animal Husbandry on 21.06.2021. As such, they have submitted proposals for cancellation of the orders by the Government and requested to post the petitioner in any one of the existing vacancies vide office letter RoC No. AHF02-23031/132/2021-Estt BI(A) Sec. DAH dated 24.06.2021 and 10.07.2021 and the orders awaited from the Government. 8. And it is further contended that the 3rd respondent who is having the requisite qualification i.e. post graduation in Veterinary Science has reported for duty on 16.06.2021 and proposals were submitted to the Government for issuance of reposting orders by cancelling the orders vide G.O.Ms.No. 151, AHDD & F (AH.I) Department dated 17.06.2021 and the orders were awaited from the Government. And he relied on the judgment of the apex court in the case of State of Uttarakhand and others v. S.K. Singh for the proposition “that there can be no question of discrimination, if a particular specialty is required to reach the objectives sought to be achieved.” 9. The Supreme Court has referred a judgment of the apex court in Mohyd. The Supreme Court has referred a judgment of the apex court in Mohyd. Shujat Ali vs. Union of India and the same had been extracted here under: Court had drawn attention to three decisions of this Court [Narasing Rao Case (1968) 1 SCR 407 , State of J&K vs. Triloki Nath Khosla, 1974 (1) SCC 19 and Union of India vs. Dr. S.B. Kohli, (1973) 3 SCC 592 ] in which classification on the basis of educational qualifications was upheld. In Narasing Rao case, Tracers doing equal work were classified into two grades having unequal pay, the basis of the classification being higher educational qualifications. In Dr Kohli case, as refined a classification as between an F.R.C.S. in general surgery and an F.R.C.S. in Professor in Orthopaedics must have a post-graduate degree in particular speciality was upheld on the ground that the classification made on the basis of such a requirement was not “without reference to the objectives sought to be achieved and there can be no question of discrimination.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. And also contended that the Government has issued a memo No. 3728/AH.III/1/2005-2, dated 22-09-2005 of AH DD & F(AH.III) Department, prescribing the qualification of post graduation in veterinary science appointment to be appointed in training centres like RAHTCs, SAHTCs and SMILE. And the petitioner is not having the requisite post graduation, as such the 3rd respondent who is having prescribed qualification has been appointed/posted as Assistant Director, SMILE. And as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court it is not discrimination and he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Further contended that if the rules are on any particular point is silent , the Government can fill up the gaps and it can be supplemented through executive instructions but it cannot supplant the rule, through the executive instructions and it stated that the memo is not inconsistent with the any rules made under the Animal Husbandry Service rules as the rules are silent about educational qualification of Assistant Director and the rule is supplemented through Memo No. 3728/AH.III/1/2005-2, dated 22-09-2005 of AH DD & F(AH.III) Department. And the memo indicates that to post as assistant director in SMILE department one should possess post graduation in veterinary science. 12. Learned Counsel Sri Lakhsmana Rao who appeared for the petitioner would submit that the appointment order was purportedly has been issued by an officer of the State. And the memo indicates that to post as assistant director in SMILE department one should possess post graduation in veterinary science. 12. Learned Counsel Sri Lakhsmana Rao who appeared for the petitioner would submit that the appointment order was purportedly has been issued by an officer of the State. Such directions were not shown to have been issued pursuant to any decision taken by the competent authority in terms of the rules of execution business of the State framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. This decision makes it clear that a decision of the State Government must be in compliance with the requirement of Article 166 of the Constitution and a direction issued by an officer of State without following such procedure is not binding on the Government and stated the judgments relied by him indicate the same. 13. The petitioner herein was appointed by the Government under GO No 151 dated 17-06-2021 that the petitioner was working as assistant director (Animal Husbandry) and he was deputed to the SVVU Super Specialty Veterinary Hospital, and he asked to post him in the same cadre in SMILE department as to assist to his son who is suffering from ailment Multiple Sclerosis at KGH Hospital, Visakhapatnam and as per the rules governed under Animal Husbandry Service rules there is no requirement of post graduation as contended by the counsel for the State. 14. Further, the petitioner contended that the Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by administrative instructions; the force of Executive Instructions vis-a-vis to Statutory Rule or proceeding issued under art 166 of the Constitution of India and the subjective Executive Instructions vide Memo No. 3728/AH.III/1/2005-2 dated 22.09.2005 issued by the State Government cannot adversely effect of a statutory rule or proceeding issued under art 166 of the Constitution of India and cannot whittle down the Government Order by executive instructions. If that be so, it would always be open to the State Government from time to time to alter or amend or even withdraw such executive instructions by issuing fresh instructions. 15. If that be so, it would always be open to the State Government from time to time to alter or amend or even withdraw such executive instructions by issuing fresh instructions. 15. The government vide Memo No. 3728/AH.III/1/2005-2, dated 22-09-2005 of AH DD & F (AH.III) Department had prescribed a pre-requisite qualification for selection and posting of faculty in the training centre’s one such condition is one should possess a post graduation in veterinary sciences and it’s in oblivious of the fact petitioner herein is not seeking appointment by selection and he is seeking transfer on the same cadre from one department to another department i.e., SMILE hence the supra referred memo is not applicable to the petitioner herein and the petitioner is not seeking any appointment by promotion likewise of 3rd respondent herein to apply the condition as prescribed in the memo. 16. It relevant or it is pertinent to state that In the absence of any rules, or Statute, the state had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. 17. F.R.15 (a) [The State Government] may transfer a Government servant from one post to another; provided that except (1) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or (2) on his written request. 18. It is now well settled that a government servant can be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre which is a normal feature and transfer essentially to a similar post in the same cadre as observed by the apex Court in B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1987 SC 287 . Except no transfer can be made to a post higher than what a Government servant is holding. 19. It is well known that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. [See Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Arvindbhai Rambahi Patel, JT 2006 (8) SC 393 : (2006) 8 SCC 726 : AIR 2006 SC 3304 ]. When an amendment or alteration is to be brought about by a Parliamentary or state’s Legislation, the same purpose cannot be achieved by taking recourse to circular letters. 20. [See Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Arvindbhai Rambahi Patel, JT 2006 (8) SC 393 : (2006) 8 SCC 726 : AIR 2006 SC 3304 ]. When an amendment or alteration is to be brought about by a Parliamentary or state’s Legislation, the same purpose cannot be achieved by taking recourse to circular letters. 20. Unless the rules Animal Husbandry Service rules are amended any executive instruction would amount to supplicant the rule as the rules does not allude the requirement of post graduation now in the present case in hand the petitioner is seeking transfer on the same cadre i.e. from assistant director (Animal Husbandry) SVVU Super Specialty Veterinary Hospital to SMILE department Visakhapatnam and it is not oblivious of the fact that the Government has issued orders vide GO Ms No 151 dated 17-06-2021 appointing the petitioner as assistant director SMILE Visakhapatnam. 21. This Court relies on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.D.A. and Others vs. Joginder S. Monga and Others, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that in case where a conflict has arisen between a statute or a statutory rule on the one hand under executive instruction on the other. Only in a case, where a conflict arises between statutes under executive instruction, indisputably the former will prevail over the latter. As per the rules, post of Assistant Director is a formal post and no qualification of PG was prescribed under rules of Animal Husbandry Service rules 1996. And the petitioner is working as assistant director (Animal Husbandry) was deputed to the SVVU Super Specialty Veterinary Hospital and he is only seeking to transfer to SMILE and the said post can be filled up by promotion from among the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. And he further contended that the 3rd respondent is not eligible for the said post as he was discharging duties as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons unless he was given promotion by competent authority he cannot be posted as assistant/additional director SMILE. Further contended that as there is no conflict in the Rules, the Administrative Instructions cannot be prevail over the Government Order. The 2nd respondent cannot appoint the 3rd respondent in the post of Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, who is not the appointing authority and he cannot seek such ratification from the Government. As per Rules Animal Husbandry Service rules the appointing authority is the Government. 22. The 2nd respondent cannot appoint the 3rd respondent in the post of Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, who is not the appointing authority and he cannot seek such ratification from the Government. As per Rules Animal Husbandry Service rules the appointing authority is the Government. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no ambiguity in the Animal Husbandry Service rules and any executive instruction would amount to supplicant the rule and further stated and this executive instruction is not having a statutory force. Therefore, the respondents cannot supplement any executive instructions to the rules made to the Animal Husbandry Service rules under the Article 309 of Constitution of India or by pass the Government Order made under Art 166 Constitution of India. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is acted beyond his jurisdiction and prayed to issue mandamus to the respondents herein to appoint/post the petitioner herein in the same cadre as Assistant Director of the SMILE Visakhapatnam. 23. Learned counsel for the state would contend that if the rules are on an particular point are silent can fill up the gap by way of supplementing it and can issue executive instructions not inconsistent with rule and submit that the Animal Husbandry Service Rules 1996 is silent about educational qualifications accordingly the memo was issued to fill the gap and it cannot be treated as supplicated the rule. 24. Rule 3 of Animal Husbandry Service rules consists of clause (a), (b) and (c). Clause (a) denotes: class and category, method of appointment and appointing authority, Clause (b) denotes : Promotion to all classes and categories shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal and Clause (c) denotes : all the clear vacancies in the categories of Assistant Directors of Animal Husbandry shall be filled by promotion from among the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. 25. The 3rd respondent herein who was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon on promotion was appointed as assistant/additional director vide impugned proceeding No. RoC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021 by the 2nd respondent. 26. It is relevant to state whether the 2nd respondent is the competent authority or the government is the competent authority to appoint the 3rd respondent as assistant/additional director under Animal Husbandry Service Rules 1996. 26. It is relevant to state whether the 2nd respondent is the competent authority or the government is the competent authority to appoint the 3rd respondent as assistant/additional director under Animal Husbandry Service Rules 1996. Under Rule 3 (a) of Rules 2nd respondent is not the competent authority to appoint the 3rd as assistant/additional director which is hereby extracted hereunder for effective disposal of the case, but weirdly the 2nd respondent had appointed the 3rd as assistant/additional director of SMILE contrary to rules vide proceedings in RoC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021. 27. Rule 3 of Animal Husbandry Service rules reads thus: (a) Subject to the other provisions in these rules the method of appointment and appointing authority for the several categories shall be as specified in the Table below: Class and Category Method of appointment Appointing authority (1) (2) (3) Class A: 5 (a) Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, Divnl. Asst. Director of Animal Husbandry, Publicity and Extension, Rinderpest Eradication Scheme, Zoo Park, Veterinary Poly Clinic, Asst. Director of Animal Husbandry, Farm and House Service Scheme, Asst. Director of Animal Husbandry (Technical) in Head Office. By promotion from Veterinary Asst. Surgeon in Category (6) of Class A. Government (b) (b) Asst. Director of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Livestock Farm incl. Asst. Director of Animal Husbandry, Progeny Testing Unit, Livestock Asst. Training Centres, Goshalas, Asst. Director of Animal. By promotion from Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in Category (6) of Class A. Government The incumbent who directly recruited as veterinary assistant surgeon under rule 6 a of class A is eligible for promotion as Assistant Director as per Animal Husbandry Service Rules 1996 and the appointing authority is the government. (b) Promotion to all classes and categories shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. (c) All the clear vacancies in the categories of Assistant Directors of Animal Husbandry shall be filled by promotion from among the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. 28. This would suffice to determine that the 2nd respondent has acted in malice and beyond his jurisdiction in appointing the 3rd respondent as assistant director and he is not appointing authority to appoint the 3rd respondent as assistant/additional director of Animal Husbandry. 29. 28. This would suffice to determine that the 2nd respondent has acted in malice and beyond his jurisdiction in appointing the 3rd respondent as assistant director and he is not appointing authority to appoint the 3rd respondent as assistant/additional director of Animal Husbandry. 29. Apex Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 407 where the apex Court observed: (SCC p. 431, Paras 47-48) “Malice in law.” 30. This Court has consistently held that the State is under an obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice in fact or in law. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part of the State. 'Legal malice' or 'malice in law' means something done without lawful excuse. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. It is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. 31. Mala-fide exercise of power does not imply any moral turpitude. It means exercise of statutory power for 'purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended'. It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, where intent is manifested by its injurious acts. Passing an order for unauthorized purpose constitutes malice in law. 32. The 2nd respondent has appointed the 3rd respondent contrary to rule made the Animal Husbandry Service Rules 1996 as per the apex court judgment referred supra act done without lawful excuse and deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others with an oblique or indirect object and mala-fide exercise of power, conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another amounts to malice-in-law. And an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, constitutes malice in law. 33. And an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, constitutes malice in law. 33. The judgment of the apex relied by the counsel for the state is in different context in the relied judgment the State Government, exercising power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has framed Rules provided for recruitment to the next higher post, inter alia to the post of AE (Civil), through the process of 50% by promotion from the JEs and the balance 50% through direct recruitment for which the qualification was, inter alia, a Degree in Engineering was prescribed. And the said rule had been assailed in the writ petition and the apex court had held that “that there can be no question of discrimination, if a particular specialty is required to reach the objectives sought to be achieved.” The facts are entirely are different from the facts in the judgment relied by the counsel for the state and it cannot be applied herein. Rules framed under 309 of the Constitution of India has been assailed therein. In the present case no rule was framed by the state. 34. Renu and Others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and Another, (2014) 14 SCC 50 in Para No. 31 held as under: In a democratic set up like ours, which is governed by rule of law, the supremacy of law is to be acknowledged and absence of arbitrariness has been consistently described as essence of rule of law. Thus, the powers have to be canalised and not unbridled so as to breach the basic structure of the Constitution. Equality of opportunity in matters of employment being the constitutional mandate has always been observed. The unquestionable authority is always subject to the authority of the Constitution. The higher the dignitary, the more objectivity is expected to be observed. We do not say that powers should be curtailed. What we want to say is that the power can be exercised only to the width of the constitutional and legal limits. (Emphasis supplied) 35. The unquestionable authority is always subject to the authority of the Constitution. The higher the dignitary, the more objectivity is expected to be observed. We do not say that powers should be curtailed. What we want to say is that the power can be exercised only to the width of the constitutional and legal limits. (Emphasis supplied) 35. Had it been observed by the apex court in plethora of judicial pronouncements, that, in a country governed by rule of law must be exercised in public interest and meet the test of reasonableness non-arbitrariness and fairness and as understood by a common man of ordinary prudence, justice to all and individual concerned it is required from constitutional functionaries with foreseeability, to provide justice to individuals, though may not at the cost of the society at large. Had it been a statutory body its functioning and mandate would have been governed by the legislation and any deviation therefrom would have been a case of illegality. Justice has to be practical, responsible to realities of situation. 36. In the present case, as noticed above, the Government Order dated 17.06.2021 vide G.O.Ms.No. 151 was issued in accordance with rules of business as framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India and it is undisputed fact, and the same cannot be over ride by mere circular and which circular is not applicable or impediment to the petitioner herein to appoint as assistant director of SMILE as he was transferred from the same cadre. The Director who is the 2nd respondent cannot appoint the 3rd respondent as he is not the appointing authority. The judgments relied by the petitioner reflects the above said proposition. 37. On perusal of the record, it is writ large from the counter and material papers that the 2nd respondent submitted proposal through RoC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021 at one hand for approval of promotion of the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent government and in another hand agog the 2nd respondent appointed, the 3rd respondent as assistant/additional director of SMILE on 16-06-2021, oddly enough on the same day in defiance to the order of 1st respondent i.e. GO Ms No 151 dated 17-06-2021 and contrary to Rule 3 of Animal Husbandry Service Rules 1996 and the 2nd respondent who is not the appointing authority. 38. 38. On the conspectus of the facts and law it is evident and visible that the 2nd respondent purportedly has appointed the 3rd respondent as Assistant Director contrary to the Animal Husbandry Service Rules 1996 and in defiance to the G.O. Ms No 151 dated 7-06-2021 issued by the 1st respondent herein and as per the rule 3 (a) of Animal Husbandry Service rules 1996 the promotional avenue for the post of Assistant Director is from the post of veterinary assistant surgeon and the appointing authority is government. The 3rd respondent has been appointed by the 2nd respondent vide the impugned proceedings in RoC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021 solely on the premise that he possessed the post graduation qualification but he was not appointed by the competent authority. And the petitioner herein seeking transfer from one department to another in the same cadre and he is not seeking any appointment by promotion. And it is also undisputed fact petitioner is senior to the 3rd respondent herein. 39. And it a fit case to direct the government to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd respondent who acted in defiance of the government order dated 17-06-2021 and in appointing the 3rd respondent exercising the power which is not conferred on the 2nd respondent under the Animal Husbandry Service rules 1996 by usurping the powers of the 1st respondent and he acted malice-in-law. 40. For the above discussion and as rightly contended by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is acted beyond his jurisdiction for the best reasons known to him and he is not appointing authority as per the Rules he agog appointed the 3rd respondent without awaiting the G.O. issued by the Government. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction. Hence, the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Assistant/additional Director, SMILE, made by the 2nd respondent is not within his purview as per the rules or the 2nd respondent Director Animal Husbandry is the appointing authority, accordingly the impugned proceedings in ROC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021 is hereby set aside. 41. Hence, it is a fit case to issue a mandamus to the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein as Assistant Director SMILE in the place of 3rd respondent, as the 2nd respondent had violated rule and the law. 41. Hence, it is a fit case to issue a mandamus to the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein as Assistant Director SMILE in the place of 3rd respondent, as the 2nd respondent had violated rule and the law. Therefore, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Director in SMILE in the place of 3rd respondent as expeditiously as possible within 10 days from date of receipt of the order in pursuant to the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent vide GO Ms No 151 dated 17-06-2021. 42. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 43. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.