JUDGMENT : G. NARENDAR, J. 1. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-T.T.D. board (Lead Appeal), Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants (Companion Appeal), that is, those who have been displaced on account of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and it is pertinent to record at this stage itself that they were all employees of the T.T.D. board in various other cadres and departments of the T.T.D. before being appointed as Librarians/Graduate Librarians and Sri P.V. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the Appellants/Petitioners (Connected Appeal), that is the Petitioners. The appeals are referred to as the lead appeal, companion appeal and the connected appeal, for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The G.O.Rt. No. 1411, Revenue (ENDTS.III) Department, dated 28.11.2019, that was quashed by the learned single judge, was issued by the State Government, pursuant to a request and at the instance of the lead - appellant i.e. the T.T.D. Board [in short ‘the Board’]. The Government order was requested and issued to enable Board to fill up the vacancies in the post of Librarian (06) and Graduate Librarian (06) by way of direct recruitment by transfer i.e. by way of making appointments from amongst staff of the T.T.D. board, who allegedly possessed the requisite academic qualifications stipulated under the recruitment Rules. 3. The paragraphs Nos. 2 & 3 of the Government Order, read as under: “2. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams has requested the Government to consider filling up of 6 Librarian and 6 Graduate Librarian posts under recruitment by transfer in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams educational institutions as one-time measure for the academic year 2019-2020 instead of filling them up through the promotion channel. (Emphasis by this Court) 3. Government after careful examination of the matter hereby accept the proposal of the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and order to filling up of 6 Librarian and 6 Graduate Librarian Posts under recruitment by transfer in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams educational institutions as one-time measure only for the academic year 2019-2020 instead of filling them through the promotion channel.” 4. The Learned Counsel for the appellants in the Companion Appeal submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid G.O. the appellants therein, preferred their applications. That the same were considered and orders of appointment came to be issued. The Learned Counsel for the appellants in the Companion Appeal submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid G.O. the appellants therein, preferred their applications. That the same were considered and orders of appointment came to be issued. It is also pertinent to note that the same was preceded by removal, rather non-extension of the contracts executed by the Board in favour of the appellants in the Connected Appeal. It is also pertinent to note at this stage itself, that these so called “contract employees” appointed to the posts of Librarian/Graduate Librarians, were so appointed, after they were made to go through the rigor of the selection process which was preceded by a public notification inviting applications. The notification inviting applications from the qualified public was issued on date 10.07.2007. The pleaded facts, disclose that the incumbents, who were subjected to and made to undergo the rigor of the selection process, were fully qualified in all respects, to be appointed to the post of Librarian/Graduate Librarian. 5. The learned Single Judge taking note of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules (C & R Rules) and also after placing reliance on the C & R Rules i.e. framed by the Board in respect of the post of Librarian and Graduate Librarian and after appreciating the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and after examining the same in detail, has been pleased to reject the prayer of the then incumbents, that is, the appellants in the Connected Appeal, i.e. prayers of the contract employees, praying for regularization of their service. While so, rejecting the prayer for regularization, the Court proceeded further and was also pleased to quash the G.O. dated 28.11.2019, pursuant to and under which, the appellants in the Companion Appeal came to be appointed. 6. The learned Counsels for the appellants in the lead appeal and the companion appeal, would in unison, vociferously and vehemently contend that the order of the learned single judge quashing the G.O. is highly is erroneous and unsustainable. 7. Sri Sarma, learned counsel for the Lead appellants, would contend that on account of lack of regular employees to occupy the critical posts of Librarian and Graduate Librarian, they requested the Government for an exemption and as a onetime measure, to permit them to make recruitment to the said posts, dehors the Recruitment Rules. 7. Sri Sarma, learned counsel for the Lead appellants, would contend that on account of lack of regular employees to occupy the critical posts of Librarian and Graduate Librarian, they requested the Government for an exemption and as a onetime measure, to permit them to make recruitment to the said posts, dehors the Recruitment Rules. That the Government, accepting the request, had got issued the G.O. That the request was to make the recruitment from amongst existing staff, as there were several qualified members from amongst the existing staff, who were eligible to be appointed to the said posts of Librarian and Graduate Librarian. It is further elaborated that the Board having sought for amendment to the recruitment Rules and the amendment not having been approved and kept pending, the learned Single Judge erred in holding the action of the respondent as being vitiated by mala fides. The lead appellant having merely acted in consonance with Government Order, the learned single judge has erred in setting aside the appointments legitimately made. 8. We have pointedly queried the learned counsel for the lead appellants, as to why the services of the then incumbents were discontinued when there were none to discharge duties, to which the learned counsel has no answer. We have also queried the learned counsel as to why a regular selection process, in terms of the cadre & recruitment rules, could not have been commenced and applications invited for the posts available, during the time the contractual employees were discharging duties, to which also we find no answer. 9. Per contra, learned counsel in the companion appeals Sri J. Sudheer, would vehemently contend that the learned Single Judge seriously erred in appreciating the Writ Petition and setting aside the G.O. itself. He would contend that the petitioners stood denuded of any locus standi, when the learned Single Judge held that they were not entitled for the relief of regularization. Elaborating further he would contend that further consideration of the Writ Petition for declaring the G.O. was arbitrary and illegal and virtually renders it as a P.I.L. which jurisdiction was not vested in the learned single judge and hence the order impugned to that extent alone is unsustainable and is required to be interfered with and set-aside. 10. Elaborating further he would contend that further consideration of the Writ Petition for declaring the G.O. was arbitrary and illegal and virtually renders it as a P.I.L. which jurisdiction was not vested in the learned single judge and hence the order impugned to that extent alone is unsustainable and is required to be interfered with and set-aside. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the lead appellants that, the power of relaxation having been vested in the State, under Rule 31 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the learned Single Judge ought not to have attributed mala fides to the Lead Appellants. 11. Learned counsel would also submit that the question of holding the action as mala fide is unsustainable in view of the fact that there are no supportive pleadings and on that ground also the impugned order in so far it holds the G.O. as bad warrants interference. That the Learned Single Judge also erred in holding that the impugned action and the G.O. stood vitiated on account of mala fides too. He would also submit that the later part of the order holding the G.O. as bad is erroneous as the petition was rendered academic in view of the fact that the Court below had rejected the prayer of the petitioners to regularize their services and they not being aspirants, the Learned Single Judge ought not to have proceeded further. 12. The Learned counsel in the Connected Appeals, would canvass that the order is erroneous as the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the factual aspects of the case in the background of the law settled by the constitutional Bench in Uma Devi’s case, and more particularly the fact that the petitioners were selected after being made to undergo the complete process of selection and that the employer, only while issuing the order of appointment, made it a contractual one. 13. In the above facts and circumstances, the points that arise for consideration is: 1. Whether the appellants in the lead appeals, namely the Board and the beneficiaries (companion appeals) of the notification are entitled to plead invocation of Rule 31 and whether the appellants have made out a case of the Government justifying the invocation of the Rule of relaxation? 2. Whether the impugned notification dated 28.11.2019 is legal? 3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to seek regularization of their services? 14. 2. Whether the impugned notification dated 28.11.2019 is legal? 3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to seek regularization of their services? 14. Having heard the learned counsels and having perussed the material papers and having given our anxious consideration to the various contentions canvassed and the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no ground that warrants interference with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. All the points are taken up together for consideration, as they are inter-linked. 15. Learned Single Judge has examined the Rules, the prescribed qualification and the criteria for and the method of appointment to the post of Librarian and Graduate Librarian. The post of Librarian is the lower and feeder cadre and the post of Graduate Librarian is a promotional cadre. The prescribed qualifications for the post of Librarian and Graduate Librarian are as under: 01. Librarian By Direct Recruitment (i) Must possess a post graduate degree in I or II class from a recognized university and a degree of B.L.Sc. or equivalent degree thereto. (ii) Must possess a fair knowledge of Sanskrit. By Promotion By promotion from Librarian (graduate) (i) Must possess a fair knowledge in Sanskrit. (ii) Must have not less than 5 years of service as Graduate Librarian. 02. Graduate Librarian By Direct Recruitment (i) Must have passed the Degree of B.A, B.Com or B.Sc of a recognized University. (ii) Must possess a Degree in Library Science or a Diploma in Library Science from any recognized University. 16. The appointment to the post of Librarian is by way of promotion and by way of Direct Recruitment. It is pertinent to note the method of appoint set-out in the aforesaid table for the post Librarian and the same is two way, i.e. by way of Direct Recruitment and by way of Promotion. Qualifications or elibibility criteria for the Direct Recruits is stated therein. In so far as the appointment by way of promotion is concerned, it stipulates that the promotee to be eligible to promoted, must have put in a service of not less than 5 years as a Graduate Librarian. It is pertinent to note that, as per the Rules no direct recruitment “By Way of Transfer” is permissible. In so far as the appointment by way of promotion is concerned, it stipulates that the promotee to be eligible to promoted, must have put in a service of not less than 5 years as a Graduate Librarian. It is pertinent to note that, as per the Rules no direct recruitment “By Way of Transfer” is permissible. If that be so, we are unable to appreciate the action of the Board in attempting to make appointments contrary to the Rules framed by them & subsisting on date. The action is sought to be justified on the basis of proposed amendment. It is no more res integra that, amendments do not become operative, unless legislated and brought into effect, in a manner known to law. 17. In fact under the proposed amendment, 25% of the posts of Librarian is sought to be filled up by transfer as is now being done. The similar provision is also made for the purpose of filling Graduate Librarian post. Thereby 30% of the Graduate Librarian posts are said to be filled up by direct recruitment, by way of transfer. It is not in dispute that the proposed amendment, is yet to receive the assent nor have the rules been amended in a manner known to law. If that be the admitted case, the settled position in law is that no recruitment can be made contrary to the rules framed by the appointing authority. The issue is no more res-integra. A division Bench of Karnataka High Court headed by his lordship R.V. Ravi Chandran in the case of Sri M.V. Dixit and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, ILR 2004 KAR 3802 wherein paragraph nos. 22 and 23 reads as under: “22. After the coming into force of the Civil Services Act, creation and abolition of posts (i.e. specifying different categories of posts in different branches of Public Service, specifying the total number of posts and nature of posts in each category and the scales of pay admissible to each category) can only be by way of Rules made in the manner prescribed in Section 3(2) of the said Act and not by any executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. The field of Regulation of creation and abolition of posts, method of recruitment and conditions of service is now occupied by an enactment of State Legislature. The field of Regulation of creation and abolition of posts, method of recruitment and conditions of service is now occupied by an enactment of State Legislature. Therefore, exercise of the power in regard to regulation of the matters falling in the occupied field can only be in accordance with the said Act and not otherwise by an executive order. 23. It is contended by the promotees/Transferees belonging to Public Works/Irrigation Department that Section 3(1) merely provides that the State Government nay, by notification, make rules relating to recruitment and conditions of service, and specify the different categories of posts, number of posts, nature of posts and scale of pay; and that Section 3(1) is only an enabling provision permitting the State to make Rules in the manner stipulated and until Rules are made under 3(1), the executive power is not taken away in regard to matters specified in Section 3(1). It is submitted that as no Rule as contemplated in Section 3(1) has been made prescribing the cadre strength of the Accounts Superintendents or their number and nature of posts in each category in respect of Public Works or Irrigation Department, the executive power of State to create or abolition of posts is not taken away; and as a consequence, the State can by executive order, bifurcate any cadre or create a cadre by reducing the strength of an existing cadre and at the same time, create new cadre consisting of the downgraded posts. A combined reading of Article 162 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Civil Services Act, shows that the said contention is not tenable. As noticed above, executive power in regard to a subject comes to an end when a law is made in regard to such subject by the State Legislature and such law occupies the field. Prior to the enactment of Karnataka State Civil Services Act, the recruitment and conditions of services were not regulated by any law made by the Legislature. In those circumstances, the manner of recruitment and the minimum qualifications therefor were regulated by Rules made under Article 309 and the creation and abolition of posts with prescription of cadre strength and pay scales were regulated by executive orders under Article 162. In those circumstances, the manner of recruitment and the minimum qualifications therefor were regulated by Rules made under Article 309 and the creation and abolition of posts with prescription of cadre strength and pay scales were regulated by executive orders under Article 162. Once the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 enacted and came into force on 4.3.1992, the field relating to recruitment and conditions of service (including creation of abolition of posts, fixing the number and nature of posts) became a field occupied by law made by the State Legislature. The law is made in regard to ‘recruitment’ in a wider sense which includes not only the method of Recruitment, but also creation and abolition of posts by specifying different categories of posts in different branches of public service specifying total number of posts, nature of such posts and scales of pay admissible to such posts. As the field relating to creation and abolition of posts is occupied by an enactment of the State Legislature, regulating the entire field of recruitment, the State can abolish or create posts only by making rules as contemplated in Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services Act and not by an executive order under Article 162. We are therefore of the view that the cadre strength of Accounts Superintendents in public works and Irritation departments could not have been altered by government by issuing an executive order under Article 162 on 05.12.2001.” 18. The law settled by the Division Bench, in our considered opinion, squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. The rule having prescribed the manner of appointment to the post of Librarian by way of Direct Recruitment and by way of Promotion only, the action of the respondents in attempting to fill up the posts by way of “transfer” or in other words, by way of direct recruitment by way of Transfer is impermissible & illegal being contrary to “Mode” of appointment prescribed under the statute. 19. It is no more res integra that if a thing is mandated by law to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in the said manner alone or not at all. The fact that the appointing authority/ Lead Appellant, was well aware of the position is made obvious by the very nature of the request that manifested on the part of the Board and was placed before the Government. The fact that the appointing authority/ Lead Appellant, was well aware of the position is made obvious by the very nature of the request that manifested on the part of the Board and was placed before the Government. Direct Recruitment, by way of “Transfer”, not being one of the recognized mode of “appointment” the appointments were per se illegal and the appointments made were void ab-initio. It is needless to state that void orders/ appointments do not confer any right in the person so appointed. 20. The reliance on Rule 31 in our considered opinion is an afterthought and the neither the Lead appellants nor the Companion appellants, have demonstrated compliance with even a single pre-condition stipulated under Rule 31. It is not that Rule 31 can be invoked at the drop of a hat. Invocation of Rule 31 is permissible only in certain specific circumstances and in the case on hand there is no demonstration of fact that the conditions obtaining at the relevant point of time justify invocation of Rule 31. Rule 31 reads as under: “Rule 31: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the Governor shall have the power to relax any rules contained in these rules or special rules, in favour of any person or class of persons, in relation to their application to any member of a service or to any person to be appointed to the service, class or category or a person or a class of persons, who have served in any civil capacity in the Government of Andhra Pradesh in such manner as may appear to be just and equitable to him, where such relaxation is considered necessary in the public interest or where the application of such rule or rules is likely to cause undue hardship to the person or class of persons concerned.” 21. Neither the pleadings, nor the submissions canvassed before us, make out any justification nor demonstrate compliance with the conditions stipulated under Rule 31. Neither any exceptional circumstance nor any hardship or public interest, is demonstrated before this Court also. 22. In fact, the so called hardship, which is now pleaded, is a post facto one, and is a making of their own and we state so in view of the following. Neither any exceptional circumstance nor any hardship or public interest, is demonstrated before this Court also. 22. In fact, the so called hardship, which is now pleaded, is a post facto one, and is a making of their own and we state so in view of the following. The employer having conducted a selection process and the Appellants in the Connected Appeals, having emerged as the most meritorious and having been selected solely on the basis of their merits and they having been on the pay rolls since 2007, though as contractual employees, there was absolutely no dearth of working hands to discharge the duties of the Librarian or Graduate Librarians. The Lead Appellant in order to create an artificial necessity, the contracts of the librarians/graduate librarians in employment were discontinued, vacancies were artificially created and thereafter the instant G.O. came to be issued. These are facts that are borne out by the records and the pleadings. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that, an attempt was made to issue a public notification, invite applications and conduct selections to the post on the basis of “Assessed Merit” but on the other hand an attempt is made to justify selections on the basis of “available talent.” It is not a case of there being a dearth of meritorious candidates but the selection is a result of a “tunnel vision” approach adopted by the Lead Appellant. 23. In hind sight it can also be profitably argued that the, “vacuum/situation” was created probably to place before the Court as a justification for resort to violation of the recruitment Rules and justify invocation of Rule 31 and thereby place a fait accompli before the Courts. The employer could have very well continued the appellants in the connected appeals, on the contract basis itself and in the meanwhile invited applications and completed the process and thereafter, could have relieved the persons appointed on contractual basis. It would have made available to the Employer the best of the talent to choose from. The employer could have very well continued the appellants in the connected appeals, on the contract basis itself and in the meanwhile invited applications and completed the process and thereafter, could have relieved the persons appointed on contractual basis. It would have made available to the Employer the best of the talent to choose from. But unfortunately the Board/lead appellant, in its wisdom has deemed it better but to resort to such subterfuge and arbitrary and whimsical action which even to its knowledge, was contrary to the rules of recruitment and law of the land and we would not be very far of the mark, if we were to hold that it was to facilitate a back door entry to the post of Graduate Librarian/Librarian. 24. In that view of the matter, the recruitment being in gross violation of the rules of recruitment, framed and holding the field, as on the date of appointment of the appellants in the companion appeal, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of the learned Single Judge holding the G.O. to be bad in law is, wholly justified. 25. With regard to the allegation of mala fides, it is the law that the allegations of mala fide should be supported by appropriate pleadings but in the case on hand, it is seen that the illegality is borne out by the record placed before the Court. All the facts are borne out by the records & admitted pleadings of the Lead & Companion Appellants, leading to the learned Single Judge rendering a finding that the appointments are vitiated by mala fides and consequently illegal. The other startling fact is that the number of posts for which the requests were made, the number of posts sanctioned under the G.O. and the number of appointments made by the Lead Appellant are one and the same. Nothing is pointed out nor any material placed to show, that this opportunity of appointment of recruitment by transfer, was even publicized much less widely publicized even the amongst staff of the lead appellant. 26. Nothing is pointed out nor any material placed to show, that this opportunity of appointment of recruitment by transfer, was even publicized much less widely publicized even the amongst staff of the lead appellant. 26. There is also not a whisper as to how the appellants in the companion appeals i.e. the beneficiaries of the scheme, came to know about the G.O. and as to when they were called upon to make applications or as to when they made their applications or as to whether any selection process was undergone by them, whether any written examination or interviews were conducted, etc,. Nothing is forthcoming either from the pleadings or the record. Thus, this very fact alone by itself speaks volumes and indicates that the appointees/beneficiaries were pre-determined. It is not the case of the lead appellants that apart from the appellants in the companion appeals, there are no others who possessed the qualifications as prescribed under the Rules. In contrast the appellants in the connected appeals, were not only appointed to the very posts but were appointed to the said posts after going through a valid selection process. They were on the rolls of the Lead Appellants/TTD and in fact they were discharging duties in the said posts itself, when they were unceremoniously removed. 27. In contrast, the appellants in the companion appeals though claim to possess the requisite qualifications, had apparently applied for and appointed in different departments and in different posts of the Lead Appellant/TTD. It is not even known as to whether as on the date of the appointment to the post of Librarian or Graduate Librarian, they were even conversant with the subject and the training they had undergone. The so called advantage, which the lead appellants and the appellants in the companion appeal canvassed before this Court is negated by the very fact that even the appellants in the Connected Apeals/petitioners were on the rolls of the Board and they were discharging their duties which would imply that they were more conversant with the work they were required to discharge than the appellants in the Companion Appeals. 28. Any prudent person would have in fact seen an advantage in the persons who are currently holding the post rather than in persons who had lost touch with the subject itself. No perceivable advantage is pointed out. No perceivable hardship is pointed out. 28. Any prudent person would have in fact seen an advantage in the persons who are currently holding the post rather than in persons who had lost touch with the subject itself. No perceivable advantage is pointed out. No perceivable hardship is pointed out. No grave situation is pointed out justifying the recourse to this arbitrary manner of appointment. The inferences drawn by the learned Single Judge are supported by the records and pleadings. In that view also, we see justification for the adverse inference drawn by the learned Single Judge. But the only face saver is that the Government had given its nod to this unsustainable action which in our considered opinion is tantamount to a colourable exercise of power. The exercise carried out by the appointing authority in our opinion is a classic case of misfeasance. There is no doubt that the appointing authority was empowered to make appointments to the posts, but taking advantage of the said authority and the said power vested in them, it is not open to the appointing authority to exercise their power in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The appointing authority was well aware of the limitations in law and was well aware of the procedure prescribed and despite such prescription has proceeded to resort to such appointments by such an arbitrary fashion and now seek to justify the same under the cloak of relaxation of the Rules. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that no grounds are made out justifying the invocation of Rule 31. 29. Nextly, with regard to the finding of the learned Single Judge negating the prayer of the petitioners for a protection to direct the appointing authority to consider regularization of their services, apparently they were all discharging the duties on a contractual basis and none of them thought it necessary to seek any relief till the attempt to make the illegal appointments. The fact that they were discharging duties in the posts and the fact that they were fully qualified and eligible to be appointed to the said post was sufficient for them to maintain writ petition. 30. The fact that they were discharging duties in the posts and the fact that they were fully qualified and eligible to be appointed to the said post was sufficient for them to maintain writ petition. 30. Had the appointing authority resorted to appointment in compliance with the rules, that is, by issuing a public advertisement inviting applications and kept it open to all qualified personnel, it would have given the appellants in the Connected Appeals also an opportunity to participate in the selection process. Having not done so and having sought to justify the appointments under the cover of the G.O. the petitioners were fully justified in their prayer and we are of the opinion that the writ petitions mounting a challenge to the G.O. is fully maintainable. 31. The other limb of challenge by the appellants that they were not heard by the learned Single Judge cannot be appreciated. In view of the fact that the appointing authority was heard and in fact some of the appointees were also arrayed as party respondents. Be that as it may, the legality of the appointment was required to be canvassed by the appointing authority. The appointing authority and the Government have been heard in detail. The objections have been filed and after taking note of this, we do not deem it a ground good enough which would warrant interference with the order impugned. It was always open for the aggrieved persons to have moved the learned Single Judge for review of the order. 32. Be that as it may, they have also been heard at length by this court and the grounds canvassed have been addressed by this court on merits. In the totality of our discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge holding the G.O. as vitiated and bad in law does not warrant interference. Consequently, the appointments made pursuant to the G.O. being in the teeth of settled law and the law settled by the constitutional bench in the case of V.B. Badami and others Vs. State of Mysore and others, (1976) 2 SCC 901 prohibiting the violation of the quota rule, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge is wholly justified. 33. The issues are answered against the appellants. Consequently, all the appeals stand rejected. State of Mysore and others, (1976) 2 SCC 901 prohibiting the violation of the quota rule, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge is wholly justified. 33. The issues are answered against the appellants. Consequently, all the appeals stand rejected. The rejection of the appeals shall not come in the way, in the event the appellants deem it necessary or they are so advised to prefer a review before the learned Single Judge. The Board will be well advised to initiate the selection process at the earliest rather it would be beneficial if it forthwith set in motion the procedure for filling up the posts of Librarian and Graduate Librarian that are presently lying vacant. We are of the opinion that the process should not consume much time in view of the fact that the number of candidates/students who pursue a course in library science and the number of colleges offering courses in library science are not great in number. Hence, the appointing authority shall forthwith initiate steps to have the vacancies filled up in a manner known to law. 34. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.